Re: Parallelism and Concurrency was Re: Ideas for a (nntp: message (nntp: message 18 of 20) 14 of 20) "Object-Belongs-to-Thread" threading model

On Fri, 14 May 2010 20:00:01 +0100, Daniel Ruoso - dan...@ruoso.com <+nntp+browseruk+d52dbf78bb.daniel#ruoso@spamgourmet.com> wrote: Em Sex, 2010-05-14 às 18:13 +0100, nigelsande...@btconnect.com escreveu: The point I(we)'ve been trying to make is that once you have a reentrant interprete

Re: Parallelism and Concurrency was Re: Ideas for a "Object-Belongs-to-Thread" threading model (nntp: message 20 of 20 -last one!-)

On Fri, 14 May 2010 17:35:20 +0100, B. Estrade - estr...@gmail.com <+nntp+browseruk+c4c81fb0fa.estrabd#gmail@spamgourmet.com> wrote: The future is indeed multicore - or, rather, *many-core. What this means is that however the hardware jockeys have to strap them together on a single node, w

r30665 -[S03] make more explicit that doctrine that ~~ topicalizes, and

Author: lwall Date: 2010-05-17 03:18:51 +0200 (Mon, 17 May 2010) New Revision: 30665 Modified: docs/Perl6/Spec/S03-operators.pod Log: [S03] make more explicit that doctrine that ~~ topicalizes, and remove smartmatch table fossils that automatically fall out from it Modified: docs/Perl6/Spec/S