On Fri, Oct 15, 2010 at 10:22 AM, B. Estrade wrote:
> Pardon my ignorance, but are continuations the same thing as
> co-routines, or is it more primitive than that?
Continuations are not the same thing as coroutines, although they can
be used to implement coroutines - in fact, continuations can b
On Oct 15, 9:57 am, markjr...@gmail.com ("Mark J. Reed") wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 15, 2010 at 7:42 AM, Leon Timmermans wrote:
> > Continuations and fibers are incredibly useful and should be easy to
> > implement on parrot/rakudo but they aren't really concurrency. They're
> > a solution to a differen
On Fri, Oct 15, 2010 at 09:57:26AM -0400, Mark J. Reed wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 15, 2010 at 7:42 AM, Leon Timmermans wrote:
> > Continuations and fibers are incredibly useful and should be easy to
> > implement on parrot/rakudo but they aren't really concurrency. They're
> > a solution to a different
On Fri, Oct 15, 2010 at 01:42:06PM +0200, Leon Timmermans wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 13, 2010 at 1:20 AM, Tim Bunce wrote:
> > I've not used them, but Ruby 1.9 Fibers (continuations) and the
> > EventMachine Reactor pattern seem interesting.
>
> Continuations and fibers are incredibly useful and should
On Fri, Oct 15, 2010 at 7:42 AM, Leon Timmermans wrote:
> Continuations and fibers are incredibly useful and should be easy to
> implement on parrot/rakudo but they aren't really concurrency. They're
> a solution to a different problem.
I would argue that concurrency isn't a problem to solve; it'
On Wed, Oct 13, 2010 at 1:20 AM, Tim Bunce wrote:
> I've not used them, but Ruby 1.9 Fibers (continuations) and the
> EventMachine Reactor pattern seem interesting.
Continuations and fibers are incredibly useful and should be easy to
implement on parrot/rakudo but they aren't really concurrency.
