On Thu, Jan 01, 2004 at 11:21:57AM -0800, Jeff Clites wrote:
> As far as what level needs to implement them, I'd say that parrot has
> to do enough to make it possible for an HLL to expose ithreads-style
> threading. Due to the cross-language nature of parrot, practically
> speaking this probabl
At 11:21 on 01/01/2004 PST, Jeff Clites <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> As far as what level needs to implement them, I'd say that parrot has
> to do enough to make it possible for an HLL to expose ithreads-style
> threading. Due to the cross-language nature of parrot, practically
> speaking this
On Jan 1, 2004, at 9:43 AM, Josh Wilmes wrote:
At 16:15 on 12/30/2003 EST, Dan Sugalski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Your constraints:
2) A perl 5 iThreads "it's not a thread, it's a fork. Well, sorta..."
mode must be available
For those of us who aren't particularly familiar with ithreads, what
At 16:15 on 12/30/2003 EST, Dan Sugalski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Your constraints:
>
> 2) A perl 5 iThreads "it's not a thread, it's a fork. Well, sorta..."
> mode must be available
For those of us who aren't particularly familiar with ithreads, what does
this imply? What's different,
It's pretty obvious that we've a number of folks who've got Thread
Religion. It's also very obvious that there is more than one One True
Thread Religion. And it's *definitely* obvious that I'm getting
cranky.
So.
This is everyone's chance. You have what you think is the Right Way
to do it? Fi
