[Stackless] Re: [Python-Dev] Stackless pages
gmcm at hypernet.com
Mon Nov 6 18:15:28 CET 2000
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).
> Stackless mailing list
> Stackless at starship.python.net
Stackless mailing list
Stackless at starship.python.net
More information about the Stackless