On 4/14/2010 3:45 PM, Josh Gargus wrote:
On Apr 14, 2010, at 2:56 PM, Randal L. Schwartz wrote:
> "Chris" == Chris Mullerma.chris.m@gmail.com writes:
Chris> I agree with Eliot about the merit of the approach where, when one Chris> approach permits the other so that, effectively, both are available at Chris> the image, but the other approach does not, that there is merit in the Chris> approach that provides choice up in the image-level. Given my limited Chris> experience, however, I still cannot see a use-case where such Chris> fine-grained control is useful, so "bug" is a stronger word than I Chris> would know to use at this point..
It would be nice to presume that if I'm running, I'll stay running, interrupted only by either a higher priority process, or me saying "yield".
Or blocking on a mutex, or waiting for bytes from a socket or a file, or etc. etc.
Why would it "be nice" to be able to presume that?
For the same reasons that Tweak goes to great length to effectively implement the same model :-)
Cheers, - Andreas