> Guido: > > > I hope that it will be possible to make it a lot simpler than current > > stackless though, by not doing continuations. [Greg Ewing] > My feeling is that this won't be the case. The fundamental > change of structure needed to make it stackless will be > much the same, as will the thought processes necessary > to understand how it works. I hope you are wrong but you may be right. I'll have to have a good look -- or someone else (not Christian! With all due respect his code is unreadable :-). > > Where it gets tricky is when this spawns a new uthread, which also > > calls C which calls Python... The solution is simply that the > > application "shouldn't do that." > > I worry that this is going to be a rather severe restriction. > For instance, it may make it impossible to spawn a uthread > from within a callback from a GUI framework. Since with many > GUI frameworks the entire application gets executed in > callbacks, you wouldn't be able to use uthreads at all with > such a framework. But that's the same problem that current stackless has. I take it that you don't see the point of stackless then? That's fine. Maybe this is not an application that could use uthreads. They seem more something for servers anyway. --Guido van Rossum (home page: http://www.python.org/~guido/)
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