Vladimir Marangozov <Vladimir.Marangozov@inrialpes.fr>:
> That is, a minimal stackless implementation which gives us an equivalent
> VM as we have it today with the C stack. This is what I'd like to see
> first in the stackless PEP too. No mixtures with continuations & co.
>
> The call/cc issue is "application domain" for me -- it relies on top of
> the minimal stackless and would come only as an exported interface to the
> control flow management of the VM. Therefore, it must be completely
> optional (both in terms of lazy decision on whether it should be included
> someday).
I'm certainly among the call/cc fans, and I guess I'm weakly in the
"Stackless proponent" camp, and I agree. These issues should be
separated. If minimal stackless mods to ceval can solve (for example) the
stack overflow problem I just got bitten by, we ought to integrate
them for 2.0 and then give any new features a separate and thorough debate.
I too will be happy to test a minimal-stackless patch. Come on, Christian,
the ball's in your court. This is your best chance to get stackless
accepted.
--
<a href="http://www.tuxedo.org/~esr">Eric S. Raymond</a>
When only cops have guns, it's called a "police state".
-- Claire Wolfe, "101 Things To Do Until The Revolution"
RetroSearch is an open source project built by @garambo | Open a GitHub Issue
Search and Browse the WWW like it's 1997 | Search results from DuckDuckGo
HTML:
3.2
| Encoding:
UTF-8
| Version:
0.7.4