Front page | perl.perl6.language |
Postings from June 2006
--- Ashley Winters <ashley.winters@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 6/2/06, Paul Hodges <ydbxmhc@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >
> > my @answer = map { async { &_() } } @jobs;
>
> That still seems too explicit. I thought we had hyperoperators to
> implictly parallelize for us:
>
> my @answer = @jobs.»();
>
> Which would run them in parallel automatically, if possible.
Snazzy bit of syntactic shenanigans, that...and slick, if we're in that
mode, but just to clarify, I *will* still be able to know whether or
not something's going to thread? Or will it matter?
Seems to me there will be times when I WANT a purely single-threaded
system, even if I'm using hyperops -- in fact, especially if I'm using
hyperops. Maybe we need a pragma to be able to step in and out as
needed?
{ no threads;
print @_.»();
}
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
Thread Previous
|
Thread Next