I thought the WG sublists creation was a recursive definition.
I can see a discussion with the chair(uplevel) for guidance, but the
working groups should be left to their own devices. They should only
be responsible to return their final document. Otherwise treat it
as a black box.
> "s" =
Dan Sugalski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>At 01:17 PM 8/4/00 +0500, Tom Scola wrote:
>> >[I think this belongs on the language list, FWIW, Cc'd there]
>> >
>> >I like this, but I'd like to see this, inter-thread queues, and events
>>all
>> >use the same communication method. Overload filehandles t
> "s" == skud <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
s> There is currently no such thing as a sub-sublist. perl6-language-flow
s> would not independently spawn perl6-language-flow-switch etc. Instead,
s> the chair of -flow could contact me and suggest a new sublist such as
s> perl6-language-sw
On Fri, Aug 04, 2000 at 02:34:07PM -0400, Uri Guttman wrote:
>
>that is a major reason why i want to move all of those rfc's under the
>flow one so we can properly address that low level design and language
>changes to support them all. i should have my draft rfc done later
>tonight and will post
> "DS" == Dan Sugalski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
DS> Not gonna happen. Tk and signals, at the very least, will see to that.
DS> Coroutines are also an awfully limited threading mechanism, and I think
DS> they'd have the same problems that threads have (or the use of multiple
DS>
At 01:17 PM 8/4/00 +0500, Tom Scola wrote:
> >[I think this belongs on the language list, FWIW, Cc'd there]
> >
> >I like this, but I'd like to see this, inter-thread queues, and events
>all
> >use the same communication method. Overload filehandles to pass events
>
> >around instead, so:
>
>I'm p
>I don't see the need for a new keyword. An attribute should be fine
>
> sub foo : coroutine { }
>
>Would do quite well. It would fit with the :method attribute, and
>a possible :lvalue attribute.
That would be fine.
>Anyway, isn't what you are proposing more of a generator/sink rather
>th
>[I think this belongs on the language list, FWIW, Cc'd there]
>
>I like this, but I'd like to see this, inter-thread queues, and events
all
>use the same communication method. Overload filehandles to pass events
>around instead, so:
I'm proposing that events and threads be dropped in lieu of c
I don't see the need for a new keyword. An attribute should be fine
sub foo : coroutine { }
Would do quite well. It would fit with the :method attribute, and
a possible :lvalue attribute.
Anyway, isn't what you are proposing more of a generator/sink rather
than a coroutine? I understood
At 09:04 AM 8/4/00 -0700, Nathan Wiger wrote:
> > I like this, but I'd like to see this, inter-thread queues, and events all
> > use the same communication method. Overload filehandles to pass events
> > around instead, so:
> >
> >my $thing = <$handle>;
> >
> > could read a record from a file,
> I like this, but I'd like to see this, inter-thread queues, and events all
> use the same communication method. Overload filehandles to pass events
> around instead, so:
>
>my $thing = <$handle>;
>
> could read a record from a file, or get an event from the event queue, or
> receive some d
At 03:13 PM 8/4/00 +, Perl6 RFC Librarian wrote:
>Coroutines for Perl
[I think this belongs on the language list, FWIW, Cc'd there]
I like this, but I'd like to see this, inter-thread queues, and events all
use the same communication method. Overload filehandles to pass events
around inste
12 matches
Mail list logo
