stackless python

[Christian Tismer]

Courageous wrote:

>>No, I no longer think so.
>>It has to be shrunk down to the capabilities needed.
>>Having continuations where one-shot continuations (aka frames with
>>state) are sufficient is not healthy.
>>I've been thinking of this since a year now, and finally Guido
>>convinced me.
>>
> 
> It'll be misfortunate if all access to continuations goes away.
> Will your library at least allow the ability ot manipulate them
> through C extension functions? I would highly suggest that you
> offer this. It leaves continuation code to the experts and is
> highly dissuasive to the casual user, which would mean in practice
> very little of the labyrnthine code which use of continuations
> results in.


If I'm heading towards integration into the mainstream, I cannot
introduce a backdoor to continuations. They do add a considerable
amount of complexity to the kernel code.
I might add a branch for this later on.
For now, I need to go with one-shot continuations.
That is: After the continuation is run, its state is changed
and it cannot be run again, resp. it is no longer the same
continuation. As a compromize, I can provide an explicit
clone operation to save a continuation for re-use. Today, this
happens automagically, although it isn't needed in most cases.

Happy new year - chris

-- 
Christian Tismer             :^)   <mailto:tismer at tismer.com>
Mission Impossible 5oftware  :     Have a break! Take a ride on Python's
Kaunstr. 26                  :    *Starship* http://starship.python.net/
14163 Berlin                 :     PGP key -> http://wwwkeys.pgp.net/
PGP Fingerprint       E182 71C7 1A9D 66E9 9D15  D3CC D4D7 93E2 1FAE F6DF
      where do you want to jump today?   http://www.stackless.com/