#fork and deterministic resumption of the resulting process
Mathieu Suen
mathk.sue at gmail.com
Tue Feb 5 10:27:21 UTC 2008
On Feb 5, 2008, at 11:02 AM, Bert Freudenberg wrote:
> On Feb 5, 2008, at 10:29 , Andreas Raab wrote:
>
>> Paolo Bonzini wrote:
>>> I'm with Terry on the correct idiom to use, i.e.
>>> workerProcess := [self runWorkerProcess] newProcess.
>>> workerProcess resume.
>>
>> Sigh. One of the problems with examples is that they are ... well
>> examples. They are not the actual code. The above solution is
>> simply not applicable in our context (if it were, I would agree
>> with it as the better solution).
>>
>> [BTW, I'm gonna drop out of this thread since it's clear that there
>> is too much opposition for such a change to get into Squeak. Which
>> is fine by me - I'll wait until you will get bitten in some really
>> cruel and unusual ways and at that point you might be ready to
>> understand why this fix is valuable. Personally, I think that
>> changes that take out an unusual case of non-determinism like here
>> are always worth it - if behavior is deterministic you can test it
>> and fix it. If it's not you might get lucky a hundred times in a
>> row. And in the one critical situation it will bite you].
>
> Well, you should give us a bit more than a few hours ;) Until now
> most posters did not even understand the proposal.
Why?
>
>
> I for one would appreciate getting your fix in. It does not change
> the current semantics, and makes one very common idiom (var := [...]
> fork) safer to use. There may be better idioms, granted. However,
> for now Squeak's scheduling policy is beautifully deterministic, and
> I like keeping simple things simple.
>
> - Bert -
>
>
Mth
More information about the Squeak-dev
mailing list
|