In message <5e08335d4d.rowledge at Gravious.telus.net>
          Tim Rowledge <tim at sumeru.stanford.edu> wrote:

> Ned Konz <ned at squeakland.org> wrote:
> 
> > On Sunday 17 April 2005 10:50 am, Ramiro Diaz Trepat wrote:
> > > But why did that guy have to write those Processor yields in that code
> > > snippet to get it filled unsequentially (not '11111...22222222' ) on
> > > two equal processes forked trying to insert the numbers in the same
> > > shared queue ?
> > 
> > Because that's the way that Squeak processes work.
> > 
> > Just because his expectation of how the processes *should* fill the queue did 
> > not match the way they *did* fill the queue does not mean that there's a bug.
> Editors note: To protect my reputation for the future I should point out that I was 'that guy' adding the Processor yield in order to try to illustrate the scheduling model of squeak to Ramiro; and so all following 'him' 'he' etc should be read as 'Ramiro'.

Hmm, that actually reads rather as if I were intending to insult or ridicule Ramiro, which I wasn't. Apologies if it offended.

tim
--
Tim Rowledge, tim at sumeru.stanford.edu, http://sumeru.stanford.edu/tim
Strange OpCodes: LINO: Last In, Never Out mode