Ken,

At 10.34 24/10/2001 -0700, Ken Kahn wrote:
>Alan Kay wrote:
>
>Referencing what Ken Kahn has been discussing recently, I think a
>much nicer way to do a lot of this stuff is to have an event manager
>that each script can give the events it is interested in. The event
>manager can be very efficient (it can be like a forward inferencing
>RETE net) and it fires up scripts when it detects the events. Many
>wonderful things can be programmed efficiently this way. Today, only
>a few events are dealt with by an event handler (mouseEnter, mouseUp,
>etc.) and these are found in a fixed list in the "event" menu (the
>one whose default is "normal"). A better way would be to allow these
>to be specified as predicates that an event manager can deal with.
>
>----------------
>
>I tried to use something that Squeakers are familiar with, namely event
>handlers, to explain something that most find strange - asynchronous
>communication between autonomous activities (unclear whether it is best to
>call them concurrent objects, actors, agents, processes, or threads (since
>they don't share memory the usual distinction between processes and threads
>dissolves)). But I wasn't thinking of forward chaining or RETE nets. That
>view of computation never seemed scalable or modular enough for my tastes.

I'm not as informed as you, but this kind of thing you propose seems to 
have something in common with the clockless chips
stuff I found lately:

http://www.technologyreview.com/magazine/oct01/tristramall.asp

Right? Or did I completely misunderstood?

Bye
Adri