It would add to our "overloadation" but I don't think it makes sense in that now deals with time, be it deterministic or asynchronous (events). PRC On Wed, 26 Jul 2006, Spencer Salazar wrote:
would it make sense to somehow chuck something to now for shred joining functionality? it always sort of made semantic sense to me that (using standard built-in functionality) the only way to pass time was to explicitly operate on now.
like myShred => now; vs. me.join( myShred );
Its a bit convoluted, but the first way might convey the passage of time more explicitly and more symbolically. Not sure how a joinAll would be worked into this scheme, though.
spencer
On Jul 26, 2006, at 9:29 AM, Ge Wang wrote:
Hi!
The current way chuck works makes sense. But (and I don't know "the prober to do this in concurrent programming) I think it would make more sense to wait for child shreds to finish before terminating. This way a parent wouldn't have to worry how long the child is running, which I think is none of it's business.
Perhaps what we need is a Shred.join( Shred child ), which should let time advance until the child terminates, if ever. And maybe also a Shred.joinAll() that waits for all children shreds.
Best, Ge!
_______________________________________________ chuck-users mailing list chuck-users@lists.cs.princeton.edu https://lists.cs.princeton.edu/mailman/listinfo/chuck-users
_______________________________________________ chuck-users mailing list chuck-users@lists.cs.princeton.edu https://lists.cs.princeton.edu/mailman/listinfo/chuck-users