World: r3wp
[!REBOL3-OLD1]
older newer | first last |
Pekr 28-Sep-2009 [18308] | http://ulf.wiger.net/weblog/2008/02/06/what-is-erlang-style-concurrency/ |
Carl 28-Sep-2009 [18309] | Correct: the model is: threaded CPU, shared memory, shared symbol space, shared system function space, separate evaluation stacks, separate user contexts. |
BrianH 28-Sep-2009 [18310] | Synchronization? |
Carl 28-Sep-2009 [18311x4] | Intertask comm is via Ports. |
Sync is via ports. | |
BTW, "ports" does not need to mean "sockets" | |
The host level can provide a more direct mechanism for inter-task sync and comm. | |
BrianH 28-Sep-2009 [18315] | Locking? With shared memory, mods could trounce each other. |
Steeve 28-Sep-2009 [18316] | Carl, about parse, is that a pain (in the ass) to have access (read-only) to the rule stack while parsing ? |
BrianH 28-Sep-2009 [18317] | Wow, sounds interesting. Why would you need that? |
Carl 28-Sep-2009 [18318] | I'm not a fan of locking, but sometimes it's necessary. Otherwise, mods can be "cloned" for multi-task uniqueness. |
Steeve 28-Sep-2009 [18319x2] | to know, if we can break the parsing in any place, and continue it later |
to have async parsing possible | |
BrianH 28-Sep-2009 [18321] | Copy-on-write? |
Carl 28-Sep-2009 [18322] | So, you want "parse continuations". |
Steeve 28-Sep-2009 [18323] | sort of... ::-) |
Pekr 28-Sep-2009 [18324] | streamed parsing? :-) |
BrianH 28-Sep-2009 [18325] | Incremental parsing. |
Carl 28-Sep-2009 [18326] | Yes, I understand. That would need to be 3.1. We do not want to delay 3.0. |
Steeve 28-Sep-2009 [18327] | sort of... :-) |
Carl 28-Sep-2009 [18328] | Anyway... Pekr.... I want to note one final thing. |
Pekr 28-Sep-2009 [18329] | listening :-) |
BrianH 28-Sep-2009 [18330] | I figured out how to do PARSE on seekable ports, so that might handle a lot of the problems. |
Carl 28-Sep-2009 [18331x2] | We need a way to make the "todo list" accessible and we need users to help us maintain it. |
An example is this... | |
Henrik 28-Sep-2009 [18333] | Carl, you mentioned a while ago that you urged us to work on the docs. Does this mean we can fill out the function reference with examples without them being overwritten? |
Carl 28-Sep-2009 [18334] | Maxim needs some changes for extensions... and has posted them somewhere, but I'm not sure where. |
Pekr 28-Sep-2009 [18335] | Chat ... it was about callbacks IIRC and some ideas ... |
Carl 28-Sep-2009 [18336] | Henrik, yes... please! Every edit is saved. |
BrianH 28-Sep-2009 [18337] | In R3 chat, plls a referenced web address. |
Pekr 28-Sep-2009 [18338] | #5045 in Chat ... |
Carl 28-Sep-2009 [18339x3] | But, we can also add locking to the docs... if we want. |
Pekr, for some things, I need more of a todo list rather than message thread. | |
I think it is ok to post it in CureCode, since that's easy to track. | |
BrianH 28-Sep-2009 [18342] | Speaking of which, add finishing the PROTECT changes to the list. All details in CureCode. |
Carl 28-Sep-2009 [18343] | Even if I've said, "don't post it there"... I now say, better there than nowhere. |
Pekr 28-Sep-2009 [18344] | so why just not to chat upon some areas and fill in already good project-plan? |
Carl 28-Sep-2009 [18345x2] | Pekr, yes good. |
So, when and where? | |
Pekr 28-Sep-2009 [18347x2] | Carl - R3 Chat is not nowhere, no? It was created to be a developer's tool too. But - we can make projects-plan.html a wiki page, so we can edit it and fill it with detail? |
http://www.rebol.com/r3/project-plans.html | |
BrianH 28-Sep-2009 [18349] | Using the docs wiki, not DocBase. |
Carl 28-Sep-2009 [18350] | (I am quite sure that BrianH has some kind of microwave beam and reads my thoughts.) |
Pekr 28-Sep-2009 [18351] | :-) |
Carl 28-Sep-2009 [18352] | Pekr: what do you mean "R3 Chat is not nowhere, no?" |
BrianH 28-Sep-2009 [18353] | I'm running you in simulation :) |
Pekr 28-Sep-2009 [18354] | BrianH: now what is some secret RT's plan? Come on - you can read Carl's mind, no? :-) |
Carl 28-Sep-2009 [18355] | Lol. :) |
BrianH 28-Sep-2009 [18356] | It's a secret :) |
Steeve 28-Sep-2009 [18357] | Again about parse, there was that proposal to execute words bunded with functions and to parse their result instead of doing nothing currently. It would allow to construct dynamic rules. Any opinion ? |
older newer | first last |