Am Mittwoch, 27. September 2006 19:08 schrieb chromatic:
> While we
>
> > could of course check, what type P0 is, such a check would be needed for
> > every IO opcode. (And see below)
>
> I don't buy this argument. If the cost for checking the type of P0 is
> greater than the cost of doing IO, th
On Wednesday 27 September 2006 03:40, Leopold Toetsch wrote:
> Now compare this with an I/O opcode:
>
> read S0, P0, 10 # PIO_reads(... P0 ...)
>
> If P0 isn't a ParrotIO opcode, this segfaults. See t/pmc/io_1.pir. While we
> could of course check, what type P0 is, such a check would be needed
On Tue, Sep 26, 2006 at 04:44:53PM -0700, Allison Randal wrote:
> One piece that is currently missing is a discussion of which lightweight
> concurrency model we're going to use for the asynchronous operations.
> I've had ongoing back-channel conversations with various people, but I
> need to co
Am Mittwoch, 27. September 2006 01:44 schrieb Allison Randal:
> I've committed an updated I/O PDD. I'm close to pronouncing this ready
> to implement, so get in your comments now.
I/O Stream Opcodes
I really don't like opcodes, when dealing with I/O.
1) opcodes are needed for native int o
On Tue, Sep 26, 2006 at 04:44:53PM -0700, Allison Randal wrote:
> I've committed an updated I/O PDD. I'm close to pronouncing this ready
> to implement, so get in your comments now.
>
> One piece that is currently missing is a discussion of which lightweight
> concurrency model we're going to us
On Tuesday 26 September 2006 16:44, Allison Randal wrote:
> Also, any reactions to the distinction that async ops return status
> objects while sync ops return integer error codes? Sync opcodes could
> have 2 signatures, one with an integer return type (int error code) and
> one with a PMC return
I've committed an updated I/O PDD. I'm close to pronouncing this ready
to implement, so get in your comments now.
One piece that is currently missing is a discussion of which lightweight
concurrency model we're going to use for the asynchronous operations.
I've had ongoing back-channel convers
