Re: RFC 178 (v2) Lightweight Threads

[Chaim Frenkel]

>>>>> "AB" == Alan Burlison <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

AB> Chaim Frenkel wrote:
>> No scanning. I was considering that all variables on a store would
>> safe store the previous value in a thread specific holding area[*]. Then
>> upon a deadlock/rollback, the changed values would be restored.
>> 
>> (This restoration should be valid, since the change could not have taken
>> place without an exclusive lock on the variable.)
>> 
>> Then the execution stack and program counter would be reset to the
>> checkpoint. And then restarted.

AB> Sigh.  Think about references.  No, think harder.  See?

No, I don't. If the references are to _Variables_ what difference does
it make. If the reference is to a tied variable, so what. The tied
variable wasn't called. If it is to a call to a tied variable, then
this wouldn't apply.

Please elaborate.

(I don't think this is feasible for 6.0, and depending upon what actually
is available in the language and interpreter, who knows for 6.x)

<chaim>
-- 
Chaim Frenkel                                        Nonlinear Knowledge, Inc.
[EMAIL PROTECTED]                                               +1-718-236-0183