[Stackless] micro-threads & co-routines
Just van Rossum
just at letterror.com
Wed Oct 11 16:55:52 CEST 2000
At 2:05 PM +0300 11-10-2000, Christian Tismer wrote:
>You're wlecome. It was overdue. I hope it also fixes
>all of the MAC leaks which I couldn't reproduce.
Sure does, thanks. I hope it also fixes the leaks that Mike experienced.
>> - In the coro list (at egroups) I've proposed a co-routine API
>> and have presented an implementation of it. I think it's fairly
>> solid (apart from some continuation compatibility issues that
>> only Chris understands..). Is it an idea to include it with
>> the stackless distro? (It happens to be included in the Mac
>> binary, as that's simply my working copy...)
>I think this API will be the right thing (with tiny changes)
Like what? (API-wise, of course.)
>after an overhaul of Stackless.
>In a former message on this list, you mentioned that
>continuations are way too powerful for coroutines.
>This is not true (or will loose today's truth, soon:).
I hope you're right ;-) One thing that will have to change (and that's
largely a matter for the continuation API) is that cyclic references should
be easier to avoid. The current continuation API makes this incredibly hard
due to too much smartness. (But that's a whole nother discussion we've
mostly already had...)
[ snipped the rest ]
I worry about the length of your explanation: if it's not easy to explain,
it might not be such a good idea. I still don't see a compelling reason to
introduce yet another ownership mechanism: why not use the standard
refcounting mechanism? In our private discussion I showed you how this
could work, even in an exception context. I strongly feel that introducing
another ownership rule causes more trouble than it solves.
Stackless mailing list
Stackless at starship.python.net
More information about the Stackless