[Stackless] Re: [Python-Dev] Stackless Design Q.
Christian Tismer
tismer@tismer.com
Thu, 21 Feb 2002 13:13:28 +0100
Thu, 21 Feb 2002 13:13:28 +0100
- Previous message: [Python-Dev] Stackless Design Q.
- Next message: [Stackless] Re: [Python-Dev] Stackless Design Q.
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Greg Ewing wrote: > Christian Tismer <tismer@tismer.com>: ... >>But auto-scheduled frames are a diffeent kind >>of thing than those which are in "waiting for data" >>state. I need to distinguish them or I will crash. >> > > If you get rid of the idea of passing values between tasklets as part > of the switching process, then this distinction disappears. I think > that value-passing and tasklet-switching are orthogonal activities and > would be better decoupled. Hmm, first I thought you were wrong: Any Python function that calls something, may it be a stackless schedule function or something else, expects a value to be returned. Always and ever. But when I have a scheduler counter built into the Python interpreter loop, then a schedule will happen *between* opcodes. Such a frame is not awaiting data, and therefor not suitable to be switched to by one which is in data transfer. Now I see it: You mean I can make this schedule function behave like a normal function call, that accepts and drops a dummy value? In fact, this would make all tasklets compatible. thinking - thanks - chris -- Christian Tismer :^) <mailto:tismer@tismer.com> Mission Impossible 5oftware : Have a break! Take a ride on Python's Kaunstr. 26 : *Starship* http://starship.python.net/ 14163 Berlin : PGP key -> http://wwwkeys.pgp.net/ PGP Fingerprint E182 71C7 1A9D 66E9 9D15 D3CC D4D7 93E2 1FAE F6DF where do you want to jump today? http://www.stackless.com/
- Previous message: [Python-Dev] Stackless Design Q.
- Next message: [Stackless] Re: [Python-Dev] Stackless Design Q.
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]