[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: the state of the concurrency branch
From: |
Stefan Monnier |
Subject: |
Re: the state of the concurrency branch |
Date: |
Mon, 21 Oct 2013 14:17:39 -0400 |
User-agent: |
Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.3.50 (gnu/linux) |
>> I think a typical reason to do this kind of funny business is to
>> communicate from the timer (or process filter or whatever) back to
>> the caller.
> For this use case, wouldn't a feature for thread futures be appropriate?
For process filters/sentinels, you can almost always replace the
dynamically scoped variable with a process property.
We could add timer properties for that same purpose. Tho, there are
already many other ways to get the same result without relying on
dynamic bindings.
Stefan
- Re: the state of the concurrency branch, (continued)
- Re: the state of the concurrency branch, Tom Tromey, 2013/10/17
- Re: the state of the concurrency branch, Tom Tromey, 2013/10/17
- Re: the state of the concurrency branch, Stefan Monnier, 2013/10/18
- Re: the state of the concurrency branch, Tom Tromey, 2013/10/18
- Re: the state of the concurrency branch, Richard Stallman, 2013/10/19
- Re: the state of the concurrency branch, Barry OReilly, 2013/10/19
- Re: the state of the concurrency branch, Stefan Monnier, 2013/10/19
- Re: the state of the concurrency branch, Barry OReilly, 2013/10/19
- Re: the state of the concurrency branch, Tom Tromey, 2013/10/21
- Re: the state of the concurrency branch, Barry OReilly, 2013/10/21
- Re: the state of the concurrency branch,
Stefan Monnier <=
- Re: the state of the concurrency branch, Stefan Monnier, 2013/10/21
- Re: the state of the concurrency branch, Barry OReilly, 2013/10/19