[Python-Dev] Re: [Stackless] comments on PEP 219

Christian Tismer tismer at tismer.com
Wed Mar 14 16:23:38 CET 2001


Gordon McMillan wrote:
> 
> [Jeremy]

<big snip/>

> Obviously, those of us who like Stackless would be delighted
> to have all interpreter recursions removed. It's also obvious
> where your rhetorical argument is headed: Stackless is
> dangerous unless all interpreter recursions are eliminated; it's
> too much work to remove all interpreter recursions until Py4K;
> please reassign this PEP a nineteen digit number.

Of course we would like to see all recursions vanish.
Unfortunately this would make Python's current codebase
vanish almost completely, too, which would be bad. :)

That's the reason to have Stack Lite.

The funny observation after following this thread:
It appears that Stack Lite is in fact best suited for
Microthreads, better than for coroutines.

Reason: Microthreads schedule automatically, when it is allowed.
By normal use, it gives you no trouble to spawn an uthread
from any extension, since the scheduling is done by the
interpreter in charge only if it is active, after all nested
calls have been done.

Hence, Stack Lite gives us *all* of uthreads, and almost all of
generators and coroutines, except for the mentioned cases.

ciao - chris

-- 
Christian Tismer             :^)   <mailto:tismer at tismer.com>
Mission Impossible 5oftware  :     Have a break! Take a ride on Python's
Kaunstr. 26                  :    *Starship* http://starship.python.net/
14163 Berlin                 :     PGP key -> http://wwwkeys.pgp.net/
PGP Fingerprint       E182 71C7 1A9D 66E9 9D15  D3CC D4D7 93E2 1FAE F6DF
     where do you want to jump today?   http://www.stackless.com/
_______________________________________________
Stackless mailing list
Stackless at starship.python.net
http://starship.python.net/mailman/listinfo/stackless



More information about the Stackless mailing list