[Stackless] micro-threads & co-routines

Dirk-Ulrich Heise hei at adtranzsig.de
Thu Oct 12 11:36:15 CEST 2000

My comment on the ownership scheme Christian
wants to introduce: 
It's perfectly okay. Just, you should notice that "having
a reference" doesn't mean "own" in the logical sense. 

When designing some OO framework, you would normally
not start with language implementation details. You think
about who "owns" an object in a more abstract sense -
other objects may be allowed to have a refernece or pointer 
to some helper object, but its owner is the one who
determines the lifetime of the owned object. If this
design is correct, it avoids dangling pointers in C++ or
cyclic structures in Python. (which wouldn't be GCed up
to Python 1.5)

So, a design should better not take care of the implementation
language, and "ownership" is a logical thing that can't be
expressed in todays languages. Which might be a deficiency.

So, ownership concepts should better be commented 
well anyway. 

A completely different question: All these concepts by
Christian seem to be very complex. Did somebody
consider modeling them using Python, that is, create a sort
of prototype engine that would allow testing them before
the C coding starts? Just asking for curiosity.

Dipl.Inform. Dirk-Ulrich Heise
hei at adtranzsig.de
dheise at debitel.net

Stackless mailing list
Stackless at starship.python.net

More information about the Stackless mailing list