[chuck-users] Stopping and restart shreds

[Spencer Salazar]

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 at lists.cs.princeton.edu
> https://lists.cs.princeton.edu/mailman/listinfo/chuck-users