[Stackless] Re: [Python-Dev] Stackless pages

[Gordon McMillan]

Just,

I wasn't thinking of your coroutine extension when I wrote that 
(I said "coroutine class" after all). I liked what I saw; and I still 
haven't had time to look closer. I thought of bringing it up, but 
since I am still largely ignorant of what you did, and (more 
importantly) the battle is on a completely different front right 
now, I didn't.

The objections (whether the objectors have realized it yet or 
not) are to stackless precisely because it is stackless. There 
seems some acceptance of the value of uthreads, generators 
and coroutines. So the first two points to make are that all this 
stuff requires stackless (or something very like it) and 
stackless != the continuation module.

If we can't overcome "ew - a call might not ever return" there's 
not much sense in writing the PEPs.

> At 9:54 AM -0500 06-11-2000, Gordon McMillan wrote:
> >(And personally, I've found most of the attempts at, e.g.
> >writing a "coroutine" class, less comprehensible than using
> >the primitives directly.)
> 
> Erm, I've never seen your reaction (apart from "too busy now" ;-) on my
> co-routine C extension. I thought it was pretty clean API-wise, and the
> implementation ain't too bad either. I _definitely_ prefer it to using raw
> continuations (if I want co-routines, that is).
> 
> Just
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Stackless mailing list
> Stackless at starship.python.net
> http://starship.python.net/mailman/listinfo/stackless



- Gordon
_______________________________________________
Stackless mailing list
Stackless at starship.python.net
http://starship.python.net/mailman/listinfo/stackless