In message <Pine.LNX.4.21.0102120019340.878-100000 / localhost.localdomain>
spwhite / chariot.net.au writes:

> I've been playing around with multi-threading. I notice that there are
> different models for each of the options. Some split and rejoin. Some
> run in parallel with spin locks. Some are co-operative.
> 
> None of them are really satisfactory. I want threading to be part of
> the language, to be assimilated by the Borg of Syntax. Regexp's were
> assimilated, so threading should be conquerable.
> 
> After much consideration, here's a proposed model for threading. First
> comes the concept, then comes the optimisations.

Probably you like to read some surveys on concurrent object oriented
programming languages for revising your proposal.  such as

  ftp://ftp.cee.hw.ac.uk/pub/funcprog/nrs.coop96.ps.Z

or

  ftp://ftp.icsi.Berkeley.edu/pub/techreports/1995/tr-95-050.ps.gz 

both are relatively old so more recent papers are possibly available.


Here my thoght: 1. in ruby, every object (a target thing) is an object
(an instance of Object), so your plan causes too many fine grain
threads that choke the interpreter which has no such fine grain
threading system.  2. Programming model will be heavily modified.
That may cause many bugs coming from missed assumption on implicit
parallelism.  3. Most important one: Is that model really so useful?


-- 
kjana / os.xaxon.ne.jp                              February 12, 2001
What is done can't be undone.