develooper Front page | perl.perl5.porters | Postings from April 2018

Re: [perl #133021] Removed the word "discouraged" from threads'documentation

Thread Previous | Thread Next
From:
Leon Timmermans
Date:
April 10, 2018 22:25
Subject:
Re: [perl #133021] Removed the word "discouraged" from threads'documentation
Message ID:
CAHhgV8g9jsWmBkyfrrjpnvMQj-Dt_pBAzSSz-sx6yMdUgAG0rw@mail.gmail.com
On Tue, Apr 10, 2018 at 2:40 PM, Tom Molesworth via perl5-porters
<perl5-porters@perl.org> wrote:
>> Discouraged features aren't currently candidates for removal, but we may
>> later deprecate them if they're found to stand in the way of a significant
>> improvement to the Perl core.
>
> - surely this is the case? If we come up with a better way to implement
> threads while retaining the ability for Windows to support some form of
> process emulation and related features, wouldn't this be something that's
> welcomed? I don't get the impression that there's widespread satisfaction
> with the current state of affairs on either threads.pm or threads::shared.

A crucial thing to understand in this idea is that ithreads and
threads.pm are not the same thing. ithreads is a C-level feature in
the implementation, threads.pm and pseudoforks are end-user level
features that are built upon ithreads.

One can build other abstractions on top of them. ithreads is not a
good abstraction for anything resembling shared-memory architectures,
but does fit a number of other concurrency models. threads::lite did
proof that concept I hope.

If that's not what one wants, it's probably possible to implement GIL
threading instead (though I'm not sure if we'd really want that
either). I think that's unexplored territory though.

Leon

Thread Previous | Thread Next


nntp.perl.org: Perl Programming lists via nntp and http.
Comments to Ask Bjørn Hansen at ask@perl.org | Group listing | About