On Tue, Sep 20, 2005 at 14:47:33 -0400, Austin Frank wrote:
> Would the named adverbs for gather work in other contexts as well?
> Would you suggest this mechanism for specifying the buffering
> behavior for IO operations?
See scook's email below... I think that yes. Here is a reference
implementa
On 19/09/05, Yuval Kogman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> This solution lacks the elegance of the lazy loading approach, but
> has the best responsiveness. These implementations tend to be overly
> complex for what they do, and hence not worth the maintenance costs.
>
> The gain is that the user only
TSa wrote:
IIRC, $Larry has mentioned a Pipe type which to me seems to be
just the generic type where you configure the buffer/queue size.
In multi-threaded (or connected processes) applications the buffer
size needs tuning to balance responsiveness with throughput. Thus
your gather proposal cou
HaloO,
Yuval Kogman wrote:
One thing that is extraordinarily hard to do with the facilities we
have today is finding the responsive optimum between laziness and
eagerness.
Good, that you remind me to this subject! I wanted to ask the "same"
question starting from more theoretical grounds. I kn
One thing that is extraordinarily hard to do with the facilities we
have today is finding the responsive optimum between laziness and
eagerness.
Let's use an example.
WWW::Mechanize comes with a nice example script for mailing list
moderation.
This script can be rather easily hacked to work on s
