Re: submitting code
- Posted by useless Oct 01, 2009
- 1562 views
I don't understand how objecting to a proposal would cause one to believe that proposal is the current state of affairs, because if it was the current state of affairs, why would there be a proposal to change to it?
I was objecting to the way you were describing tasks. Here's the way I remember it:
Jeremy proposed the ability to call task_yield() from a translated euphoria dll that would call the task scheduler of the main process. He never talked about a 'parent' anything. That was all your language.
You kept talking about parents with respect to tasks, and about yielding to particular tasks, and not in a, "hey, let's change the behavior of task_yield() to do thus and such." If that's what you were really trying to get at, then yeah, I totally missed it, because it really had nothing to do with what we were talking about.
And in that context, you kept using the same language to refer to actual, running code, indicating to me that, while you had managed to improve the code, you didn't understand what was going on under the hood. It was never apparent to me that you understood otherwise, and it was actually an important concept for the topic we were discussing.
Matt
Date sent: Tue, 01 Sep 2009 08:37:00 -0400 From: Jeremy Cowgar <jeremy@cowgar.com> To: OpenEuphoria Developer Discussion <rapideuphoria-develop@lists.sourceforge.net> Subject: [Rapideuphoria-develop] task_yield and shared libraries
Instead of making task_yield a noop in shared libraries, would it be possible to make it call the main processes task_yield() function?
In the main process, the main process can call it's task_yield. No other task should be able to call the main process's task_yield.
Jeremy didn't say "call task_yield of the main process's task manager".
No, he said "call the main processes task_yield() function".
useless
