Re: Multitask Feedback
- Posted by Vincent <darkvincentdude at yahoo.com> Sep 22, 2005
- 447 views
Bernie Ryan wrote: > > Hayden McKay wrote: > > > > I like the functions and concept of the new multitasking library. However I > > would like to see this remain as an optional only. I'm strongly against the > > idea of craming the Interpretor with stuff that would not get used on a day > > to day basis. > > > > P.S. I like it very much though. > > > > I agree 100% ! > I think there are many more important BASIC features that need to be > added to the interpeter before multitasking is added. > > Bernie > > My files in archive: > w32engin.ew mixedlib.e eu_engin.e win32eru.exw > > Can be downloaded here: > <a > href="http://www.rapideuphoria.com/cgi-bin/asearch.exu?dos=on&win=on&lnx=on&gen=on&keywords=bernie+ryan">http://www.rapideuphoria.com/cgi-bin/asearch.exu?dos=on&win=on&lnx=on&gen=on&keywords=bernie+ryan</a> > I agree as well. I think Robert should just make these routines available in a library. (Spice up sched.e and rename it to task.e or something) but dont implement the API internally. It's not really important to me that there would'nt be multiple call stacks, multiple private data, etc. I liked the idea of cooperative tasking, only because I hoped Rob would eventually implement "pre-emptive" thread safety or maybe just awareness later. But clearly he is not going to. I think Rob should reconsider going with the "Language War" approach before he messes with the C backend. Doing this will also make it easier for us to add more features to the multi-tasking library. Regards, Vincent ---------------------------------------------- ___ __________ ___ /__/\ /__________\ |\ _\ \::\'\ //::::::::::\\ |'|::| \::\'\ //:::_::::_:::\\ |'|::| \::\'\ //::/ |::| \::\\ |'|::| \::\'\ //::/ |::| \::\\|'|::| \::\'\__//::/ |::| \::\|'|::| \::\','/::/ |::| \::\\|::| \::\_/::/ |::| \::\|::| \::,::/ |::| \:::::| \___/ |__| \____| .``. ',,'