Hi Peter, Peter TB Brett <pe...@peter-b.co.uk> skribis:
> This is going to sound like a daft question, but: is there any reason > that the thread that calls 'touch' needs to be the same thread that > calls its continuation? > > I.e. why does there need to be a special "main thread"? Can't "picking > up a job blocking on touch" just be another task allocated to the > thread pool? > > Rubbish diagram: > > Thread A Thread B > -------- -------- > Creates a future F ... > ... Starts computing F > Touches F ... > Starts computing future G ... > ... Finishes computing F > ... Continues job that touched F > > > Is this not a plausible approach? It is, IMO. This is what ‘wip-nested-futures’ currently does. What Mark said is that, you could imagine a case where computing G actually takes much longer than computing F. In that case, he suggested that Thread A computes F. However, as I said, I’m not really convinced by this argument. Normally, both F and G are contributions to a larger computation. It shouldn’t matter which one completes first, as long as threads are kept busy. Thanks, Ludo’.
