[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
We have asynchronous sessions, why have anything else?
From: |
Ivar Fredholm |
Subject: |
We have asynchronous sessions, why have anything else? |
Date: |
Sun, 26 Jun 2022 03:15:17 +0000 |
A session-less block can be executed by starting a session with a special name (say "*none") which always gets killed after block execution is completed. For interpreter-less languages, we could use the shell as an interpreter (for instance, if we wanted to execute C, we could just start a shell, and send it the gcc command to compile and execute). Would this not cut down the amount of code that needs to be maintained and uniformize the existing code?
- We have asynchronous sessions, why have anything else?,
Ivar Fredholm <=
- Re: We have asynchronous sessions, why have anything else?, Ihor Radchenko, 2022/06/25
- Re: We have asynchronous sessions, why have anything else?, Ivar Fredholm, 2022/06/26
- Re: We have asynchronous sessions, why have anything else?, Ihor Radchenko, 2022/06/27
- Re: We have asynchronous sessions, why have anything else?, Tom Gillespie, 2022/06/27
- Re: We have asynchronous sessions, why have anything else?, Tim Cross, 2022/06/27
- Re: We have asynchronous sessions, why have anything else?, John Kitchin, 2022/06/27