On Wed, May 28, 2003 at 04:41:36AM -0600, Luke Palmer wrote:
> I was reading about Haskell, and realized that I don't know what ::=
> is supposed to mean (don't ask what that has to do with Haskell :-).
> I know it's compile-time binding, but... what's compile-time binding?
>
> Could someone who k
I was reading about Haskell, and realized that I don't know what ::=
is supposed to mean (don't ask what that has to do with Haskell :-).
I know it's compile-time binding, but... what's compile-time binding?
Could someone who knows enlighten me, please?
Luke
On Tue, May 27, 2003 at 02:05:57PM -0700, Michael Lazzaro wrote:
> If we could think about "threads" not in terms of forkyness, but simply
> in terms of coroutines that can be called in parallel, it should be
> possible to create an implementation of "threading" that had to do a
> whole heck-of-
Quoting Michael Lazzaro <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Similarly, then, I would expect:
>
> sub foo(...) is threaded { ... yield() ... return() }
>
> foo(...args...)
>
> to start &foo as a new thread. C would temporarily suspend
> the thread, and C would end the thread. (Note that you could
