Greg Ewing wrote:
> martin@v.loewis.de (Martin v. Loewis):
>
>
>>Christian segments the stack into slices, and only
>>keeps the top-of-stack slice on the stack.
>
>
> Cripes! Christian, you're just *asking* for a crash
> if you do that.
:-))
> Is this really necessary? Why can't you keep the
> whole stack in one piece?
Since this is Stackless Python(R)(TM)(Pat.Pend.)
If I wouldn't slice the stacks, it wouldn't be
Stackless.
But now I have a critical section bracked built
in, that prevends stacks from slicing to a given
recursion level. Works just great!
sincerely - chris
--
Christian Tismer :^) <mailto:tismer@tismer.com>
Mission Impossible 5oftware : Have a break! Take a ride on Python's
Johannes-Niemeyer-Weg 9a : *Starship* http://starship.python.net/
14109 Berlin : PGP key -> http://wwwkeys.pgp.net/
work +49 30 89 09 53 34 home +49 30 802 86 56 pager +49 173 24 18 776
PGP 0x57F3BF04 9064 F4E1 D754 C2FF 1619 305B C09C 5A3B 57F3 BF04
whom do you want to sponsor today? http://www.stackless.com/
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