Front page | perl.perl5.porters |
Postings from January 2001
On Sun, Jan 21, 2001 at 05:02:21PM +0000, Alan Burlison wrote:
> 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
Otherwise a nice idea but the source has been rather irredeemably
ingrained in to the code. Undoing it would be more work than gain,
I think. Think of it as a limp with which we must live.
> 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
Yes, yes, yes.
> advantage of the vtbl model being suggested is such things become much
> easier to do.
>
> Alan Burlison
--
$jhi++; # http://www.iki.fi/jhi/
# There is this special biologist word we use for 'stable'.
# It is 'dead'. -- Jack Cohen
Thread Previous
|
Thread Next