--- Forwarded message ---
From: nigelsande...@btconnect.com
To: Dave Whipp - d...@whipp.name
+nntp+browseruk+e66dbbe0cf.dave#whipp.n...@spamgourmet.com
Cc:
Subject: Re: Parallelism and Concurrency was Re: Ideas for
aObject-Belongs-to-Thread (nntp: message 4 of 20) threading model
On Tue, 18 May 2010 11:39:04 +0100, Daniel Ruoso dan...@ruoso.com wrote:
This is the point I was trying to address, actually. Having *only*
explicitly shared variables makes it very cumbersome to write threaded
code, specially because explicitly shared variables have a lot of
restrictions on
On Tue, 18 May 2010 11:41:08 +0100, Daniel Ruoso dan...@ruoso.com wrote:
Em Dom, 2010-05-16 às 19:34 +0100, nigelsande...@btconnect.com escreveu:
Interoperability with Perl 5 and
is reference counting should not be a high priority in the decision
making
process for defining the Perl 6
On Fri, 14 May 2010 17:35:20 +0100, B. Estrade - estr...@gmail.com
+nntp+browseruk+c4c81fb0fa.estrabd#gmail@spamgourmet.com wrote:
The future is indeed multicore - or, rather, *many-core. What this
means is that however the hardware jockeys have to strap them together
on a single node,
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
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
This should be a reply to Daniel Ruoso's post above, but I cannot persuade
my nntp reader
to reply to a post made before I subscribed here. Sorry
On Wed, 12 May 2010 14:16:35 +0100, Daniel Ruoso dan...@ruoso.com wrote:
I have 3 main problems with your thinking.
1: You are conflating two
