John Nagle <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> People did things like that to hammer threading onto operating
> systems so dumb they couldn't context switch, like
> DOS, early Windows, and MacOS through 7. Nobody does that
> any more.
I see stuff heading more the other way; here's a description of
Tim Daneliuk wrote:
> Martin v. Löwis wrote:
> Is/Was it not the case, though, that some languages present
> a threading model to the programmer that is realized in user
> space, but not in the kernel. ISTR some early implementations
> of Posix Threads that worked that way. The API was there
> a
> That's assuming that the threading implemented at the language
> level is actually realized by underlying kernel threading.
> Is/Was it not the case, though, that some languages present
> a threading model to the programmer that is realized in user
> space, but not in the kernel.
You were asking
Tim Daneliuk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> 'Not trying to start a fight here, I'm just curious about the
> current state of that art. It is the case today that all
> modern language threading is realized over a kernel implementation
> of threading that behaves as you suggest?
Certainly not. See
Martin v. Löwis wrote:
>> I've been doing some thinking, and I've halfway convinced myself of
>> the following statement: that threads as implemented by Python (or
>> Java) are exactly equivalent to one-shot continuations in Scheme. Am
>> I right?
>
> No. In case of threads, progress can be made
> I've been doing some thinking, and I've halfway convinced myself of
> the following statement: that threads as implemented by Python (or
> Java) are exactly equivalent to one-shot continuations in Scheme. Am
> I right?
No. In case of threads, progress can be made in an overlapping
(concurrent),
On Feb 19, 8:26 pm, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[...]
> The only thing preventing Python from being
> that language is the difficulty of integrating a macro system, n'est-
> ce pas?
Well there's logix (http://www.livelogix.net/logix/)
--
Arnaud
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-li
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>If that's the case, it seems threads plus hygeinic macros and a few
>primitives a la Scheme would form a solid basis upon which to build a
>programming language. The only thing preventing Python from being
>that language is the difficu
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> I've been doing some thinking, and I've halfway convinced myself of
> the following statement: that threads as implemented by Python (or
> Java) are exactly equivalent to one-shot continuations in Scheme. Am
> I right? (I'd have asked in the scheme groups, but I feel li
