Front page | perl.perl5.porters |
Postings from January 2001
Nicholas Clark wrote: > Hangon. Is this perl6 now? Which list should it get to? > > I was meaning it more as an analogy, for stuff that shouldn't leak if > an eval dies. But it's not a great one, as you can eval inside an eval. > And only perl internals stuff. I was meaning that this was "implementation" > and perl scripts don't get to see it. Kinda both. Perl5 threads are irredeemably broken, and IMHO should be excised from the source as soon as possible - leaving them in only gives the mistaken impression that they might actually work some day. The MT-unsafe behaviour of the current eval mechanism when used with threads is just one of the reasons why they are so broken. As for perl6, there has been discussion of using the same sort of brokenness there too. The only model that seems to make sense to me is the interpreter per thread model, with new language syntax for shared state, such as variables visible to more than one interpreter. One advantage of the vtbl model being suggested is such things become much easier to do. Alan BurlisonThread Previous | Thread Next