Re: Concurrency, again

[Eli Zaretskii]

> From: Philipp Stephani <address@hidden>
> Date: Tue, 25 Oct 2016 16:48:47 +0000
> 
>  I'm open to this. I'd *like* to see exploration of alternative paradigms for
>  expressing concurrency, so merging in the concurrency branch shouldn't be 
> seen
>  as closing the door, or setting anything in stone.
> 
> That might be the intention, but I expect the outcome will be that interest 
> in alternative paradigms gets lost
> (unless such alternative paradigms would also be merged and be available in 
> parallel). 

Volunteers to come up with such alternatives are always welcome, of
course.