Time to rename Stackless? (Re: Stackless Platform Independence?)

[Martin von Loewis]

Greg Ewing <greg at cosc.canterbury.ac.nz> writes:

> Seems to me that "Stackless" is a misnomer now. If it
> works by switching between multiple stacks, then it now
> uses *more* stacks than normal Python!

That is not really true. There is only a single C stack at any point
in time, and it is bounded in size. This is just like the old
"stackless" Python: it also had a single C stack, and it also was
bounded in size.

If you count the stack copies that are made on the heap: this is also
like the old stackless Python: there always was a Python "stack" (a
linked list of frames) on the heap.

Regards,
Martin