[Stackless] Re: task.run() versus task.remove().run()

Christian Tismer tismer at tismer.com
Thu Aug 29 21:55:18 CEST 2002


Aaron Watters wrote:
> For my immediate purpose, task.run should return to the "caller" when 
> either
> the task finishes or waits on a socket.  If you add a "yeild", then too.
> 
> If the runned task calls schedule() directly then all bets are off.

Ah, ok. Actually, you want to become something like the task's
"caller". It should return to you, dead or alive :-)

Sounds a bit like a tasklet.call(), but since there are no
parameters adn we're doing this regardless of the tasklet's
state, run() is appropriate.

I'm thinking of adding a channel to the tasklet, where all
run()ers or resume()ers (for yield stuff) are chained into.
This is also an opportunity to add a return value.
If an ending/yielding tasklet has a return value, we can
give it to the caller/runner.
If a tasklet returns to the runner, I guess it would be
apropriate to give back the channel where the tasklet
is waiting upon.

Thinking... something will happen, soon... - chris

-- 
Christian Tismer             :^)   <mailto:tismer at tismer.com>
Mission Impossible 5oftware  :     Have a break! Take a ride on Python's
Johannes-Niemeyer-Weg 9a     :    *Starship* http://starship.python.net/
14109 Berlin                 :     PGP key -> http://wwwkeys.pgp.net/
work +49 30 89 09 53 34  home +49 30 802 86 56  pager +49 173 24 18 776
PGP 0x57F3BF04       9064 F4E1 D754 C2FF 1619  305B C09C 5A3B 57F3 BF04
      whom do you want to sponsor today?   http://www.stackless.com/


_______________________________________________
Stackless mailing list
Stackless at www.tismer.com
http://www.tismer.com/mailman/listinfo/stackless



More information about the Stackless mailing list