On Sat, Jan 29, 2011 at 3:31 PM, Jeffrey Massung <mass...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Geoff (btw, Jeff here ;-)), > > Okay, I think I completely understand where the disconnect lies - and it's > with my understanding of the LC internals. I put together a very simple > stack that's nothing more than a field "Test" and a button. The button > script looks like this: > ... > > Now, if LC essentially already had coroutines, when done, the output in the > field should be something like "1a2b3c..." (with newlines of course). > However, that's not what's in the field. Instead the output is > "123456...abcdef..." This is likely what you were alluding to and I wasn't > getting, and this puts an entirely different face on the conversation. > Yep, that's what I was talking about. Sorry I wasn't clearer. > > The issue isn't coroutines vs. whatever so much as LC doesn't actually > allow (from what I can tell) for multiple execution contexts. Coroutines - > obviously - is one method of achieving this goal, and I would agree that it > is a preferred solution. > I hope the test above puts this discussion to rest and is a hint to the Rev > team on a direction they can take. > I'd vote for that. > > Now, not to be pedantic, but your last paragraph didn't really make much > sense [to me]. Coroutines - since they must yield and don't run in parallel > - are are still single-threaded. This means that you could run 100 contexts > on 100 HW threads, and your program will run at exactly the same speed as if > they were on 1 HW thread (this assumes that the OS isn't hyperthreading your > application with others). > > In what way do you think threads would speed up performance? _______________________________________________ use-livecode mailing list use-livecode@lists.runrev.com Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription preferences: http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode
