(*** Sorry if this is the wrong list, I think it could interest you, as it
talks about
interface with the regexp subsystem -- that's a term a read here...
***)
Hello.
I have some ideas (actually a wishlist) for the regular expression
subsystem (that's what it'll be, right?). I would appr
On Fri, 5 Jan 2001 16:47:25 -0500, Uri Guttman wrote:
>> "DS" == Dan Sugalski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> DS> I'm less worried about long running ops (whose fix is just a SMOP,
> DS> after all... :) than I am blocked ops. We can be as clever as we
> DS> want with event dispatch and asy
On Fri, Jan 05, 2001 at 11:42:32PM -0500, Uri Guttman wrote:
> SC> 5x slowdown.
>
> not if you just check a flag in the main loop. you only check the event
> system if you have pending events or signals, etc. the key is not
> checking all events on each pass thru the loop.
Which is exactly w
At 11:49 AM 1/6/01 +, Simon Cozens wrote:
>On Fri, Jan 05, 2001 at 11:42:32PM -0500, Uri Guttman wrote:
> > SC> 5x slowdown.
> >
> > not if you just check a flag in the main loop. you only check the event
> > system if you have pending events or signals, etc. the key is not
> > checking all
On Sat, Jan 06, 2001 at 10:59:04AM -0500, Dan Sugalski wrote:
> >Which is exactly what Chip did in his safe-signals patch. 33% slowdown.
> I think you misremember that number. IIRC it was somewhere between 3%-5%.
Gosh, really? I thought it was so significant that it didn't go in core.
If it was
> "DS" == Dan Sugalski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
DS> At 11:49 AM 1/6/01 +, Simon Cozens wrote:
>> On Fri, Jan 05, 2001 at 11:42:32PM -0500, Uri Guttman wrote:
>> > SC> 5x slowdown.
>> >
>> > not if you just check a flag in the main loop. you only check the event
>> > syste
At 04:01 PM 1/6/01 +, Simon Cozens wrote:
>On Sat, Jan 06, 2001 at 10:59:04AM -0500, Dan Sugalski wrote:
> > >Which is exactly what Chip did in his safe-signals patch. 33% slowdown.
> > I think you misremember that number. IIRC it was somewhere between 3%-5%.
>
>Gosh, really? I thought it was
At 01:02 PM 1/6/01 -0500, Uri Guttman wrote:
>that is what i would expect form a simple flag test and every N tests
>doing a full event poll. and even up to 5-10% slowdown i would think is
>a good tradeoff for the flexibilty and ease of design win we get in the
>i/o and event guts. but then, i hav
Okay, here's a big question that ties the two major pains we have in perl
6--how do we tie threads and events together?
* Can all events be delivered to any thread?
* Will events be delivered only to the thread that caused them? If so, what
about threadless events? (Say, signals from the outsid
> Some of this ground does need to be revisited, since perl 6 isn't going to
> be perl 5, and the tradeoffs are going to be different. (I'm still not sure
> that checking for pending events every opcode is the way to go, either.
> Piggybacking on the end of statement cleanup opcode might be a b
> "SC" == Simon Cozens <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
SC> On Sat, Jan 06, 2001 at 10:59:04AM -0500, Dan Sugalski wrote:
>> >Which is exactly what Chip did in his safe-signals patch. 33% slowdown.
>> I think you misremember that number. IIRC it was somewhere between 3%-5%.
SC> Gosh, rea
On Sat, Jan 06, 2001 at 01:06:51PM -0500, Dan Sugalski wrote:
> At 04:01 PM 1/6/01 +, Simon Cozens wrote:
> >Gosh, really? I thought it was so significant that it didn't go in core.
> >If it was that small, why *didn't* it go in core?
>
> Because a guaranteed 3-5% slowdown in the interpreter
> "JH" == Jarkko Hietaniemi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> Some of this ground does need to be revisited, since perl 6 isn't going to
>> be perl 5, and the tradeoffs are going to be different. (I'm still not sure
>> that checking for pending events every opcode is the way to go, eithe
On Fri, 5 Jan 2001 23:46:33 -0500, Uri Guttman wrote:
>> "RC" == Rocco Caputo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> RC> With a tightly integrated event loop, blocking perl level I/O can be
> RC> implemented in terms of internal asynchronous I/O. An interpreter can
> RC> then block while perl is
On Sat, 06 Jan 2001 13:09:47 -0500, Dan Sugalski wrote:
>Okay, here's a big question that ties the two major pains we have in perl
>6--how do we tie threads and events together?
>
>* Can all events be delivered to any thread?
Yes, but in practice events probably would only be delivered to
threa
On Fri, Jan 05, 2001 at 11:20:06AM -0600, Garrett Goebel wrote:
> Visual Basic has been growing up too. And it's a whole lot easier to work
> with the Win32 API, COM, ADSI, COM, etc. than Perl.
This is now firmly off-topic, but... DevKit?
--
UNIX was not designed to stop you from doing stupid t
16 matches
Mail list logo
