On Tue, May 27, 2003 at 01:26:05PM -0700, Michael Lazzaro wrote: > If you call one routine, piece o' cake, it's not a thread, and it > doesn't have to do anything fancy. If you call a _junction_ of > routines, however, _then_ it knows it has to do the extra fluff to make > them parallel, which it then automatically does. So don't execute a > junction of Code blocks in parallel unless you intend to do that! > > So rather than having fork()y threads, perhaps we can use Code > junctions to represent parallelization, and call threads _as if they > were simply coroutines_.
I think there's some timing missing (or maybe it's just me). Executing a Code junction implies that I have all of the routines I wish to execute in parallel available at the same time. This is often not the case. Or if adding a Code block to a junction is how you parallelize them at differing times, then I think the syntax would be horrid. Besides *I* don't want to have to keep track of the junction, I just want my threads to execute. -Scott -- Jonathan Scott Duff [EMAIL PROTECTED]
