Re: Ideas for a Object-Belongs-to-Thread threading model

2010-05-14 Thread Ruud H.G. van Tol
Jason Switzer wrote: On Thu, May 13, 2010 at 3:59 AM, nigelsande...@btconnect.com wrote: And at the core of that, is the need for preemptive (kernel) threading and shared memory. These can (and should!) be hidden from the application programmer, through the use of language and/or library

Re: Ideas for a Object-Belongs-to-Thread threading model

2010-05-14 Thread Carl Mäsak
Ruud (): (Do Perl_6 hyper-operators need pthreads?) No. The ability to thread over list elements in a hyper operator is more of a possibility than a requirement, if I understand things correctly. // Carl

r30622 -[spec] Switch atan2 to work on Real instead of Numeric. Add TrigBase argument to it as well.

2010-05-14 Thread pugs-commits
Author: colomon Date: 2010-05-14 12:54:30 +0200 (Fri, 14 May 2010) New Revision: 30622 Modified: docs/Perl6/Spec/S32-setting-library/Numeric.pod Log: [spec] Switch atan2 to work on Real instead of Numeric. Add TrigBase argument to it as well. Modified:

Re: Ideas for a Object-Belongs-to-Thread threading model (nntp: message 9 of 20)

2010-05-14 Thread nigelsandever
On Fri, 14 May 2010 10:01:41 +0100, Ruud H.G. van Tol - rv...@isolution.nl +nntp+browseruk+014f2ed3f9.rvtol#isolution...@spamgourmet.com wrote: The support of threading should be completely optional. The threading support should not be active by default. I'd like to understand why you

Parallelism and Concurrency was Re: Ideas for a Object-Belongs-to-Thread threading model

2010-05-14 Thread Richard Hainsworth
After reading this thread and S17, I have lots of questions and some remarks. Parallelism and Concurrency could be considered to be two different things. The hyperoperators and junctions imply, but do not require, parallelism. It is left for the implementors to resolve whether a single or

Re: Parallelism and Concurrency was Re: Ideas for a Object-Belongs-to-Thread threading model

2010-05-14 Thread Larry Wall
On Fri, May 14, 2010 at 03:48:10PM +0400, Richard Hainsworth wrote: : After reading this thread and S17, I have lots of questions and some : remarks. : : Parallelism and Concurrency could be considered to be two different things. : : The hyperoperators and junctions imply, but do not require, :

Re: Ideas for a Object-Belongs-to-Thread threading model (nntp: message 9 of 20)

2010-05-14 Thread nigelsandever
On Fri, 14 May 2010 15:05:44 +0100, B. Estrade estr...@gmail.com wrote: On Fri, May 14, 2010 at 12:27:18PM +0100, nigelsande...@btconnect.com wrote: On Fri, 14 May 2010 10:01:41 +0100, Ruud H.G. van Tol - rv...@isolution.nl +nntp+browseruk+014f2ed3f9.rvtol#isolution...@spamgourmet.com

Re: Parallelism and Concurrency was Re: Ideas for a (nntp: message 14 of 20) Object-Belongs-to-Thread threading model

2010-05-14 Thread Daniel Ruoso
Em Sex, 2010-05-14 às 18:13 +0100, nigelsande...@btconnect.com escreveu: The point I(we)'ve been trying to make is that once you have a reentrant interpreter, and the ability to spawn one in an OS thread, all the other bits can be built on top. But unless you have that ability, whilst the

Re: Parallelism and Concurrency was Re: Ideas for a Object-Belongs-to-Thread threading model

2010-05-14 Thread B. Estrade
On Fri, May 14, 2010 at 03:48:10PM +0400, Richard Hainsworth wrote: After reading this thread and S17, I have lots of questions and some remarks. Parallelism and Concurrency could be considered to be two different things. The hyperoperators and junctions imply, but do not require,

Re: Parallelism and Concurrency was Re: Ideas for a Object-Belongs-to-Thread threading model

2010-05-14 Thread B. Estrade
On Fri, May 14, 2010 at 09:50:21AM -0700, Larry Wall wrote: On Fri, May 14, 2010 at 03:48:10PM +0400, Richard Hainsworth wrote: ...snip But as you say, this is not a simple problem to solve; our response should not be to punt this to future generations, but to solve it as best as we can,

Re: Ideas for a Object-Belongs-to-Thread threading model (nntp: message 9 of 20)

2010-05-14 Thread B. Estrade
On Fri, May 14, 2010 at 06:03:46PM +0100, nigelsande...@btconnect.com wrote: On Fri, 14 May 2010 15:05:44 +0100, B. Estrade estr...@gmail.com wrote: On Fri, May 14, 2010 at 12:27:18PM +0100, nigelsande...@btconnect.com wrote: On Fri, 14 May 2010 10:01:41 +0100, Ruud H.G. van Tol -

Re: Ideas for a Object-Belongs-to-Thread threading model (nntp: message 9 of 20)

2010-05-14 Thread B. Estrade
On Fri, May 14, 2010 at 12:27:18PM +0100, nigelsande...@btconnect.com wrote: On Fri, 14 May 2010 10:01:41 +0100, Ruud H.G. van Tol - rv...@isolution.nl +nntp+browseruk+014f2ed3f9.rvtol#isolution...@spamgourmet.com wrote: The support of threading should be completely optional. The