Concurrency models (was: Timer)

[Anthony Briggs]

At 11:59 AM -0500 27/10/03, Cameron Laird wrote:
>In article <mailman.132.1067262731.702.python-list at python.org>,
>Anthony Briggs  <abriggs at westnet.com.au> wrote:
>
>  >>after 5000 { set disabled 0 }
>>>
>>>The script carries on, and after 5 seconds whatever is being done gets
>>>interrupted in order to run a bit of script - in this case set a variable
>>>turning off a disablement of some sort.
>>
>  >Wow, that must make your scripts so much more interesting to debug ;)
>
>You probably think you wrote something uncontroversial.

No, I wrote something that I consider true. I'd consider that after 
command to be on a par with Fortran's(?) COME FROM statement in terms 
of being able to create subtle bugs.

>I take this question rather seriously, as it turns out.
>
>Scripts that are "easy to debug" make for an apt focus.
>This thread is really about asynchronous or concurrent
>processing, I claim, and I further claim we really don't
>have *any* satisfying model for coding those.  Threading
>is a quagmire (everyone agree?), and our guild has demon-
>strated only marginally more reliability in working with,
>say, co-routines, chords, continuations, and so on.  For
>my money, the event-oriented model behind the [after]
>above is at least as robust as any other.

Yes, that's what I said - only with fewer words :)

Anthony
-- 
----------------------------------------------------
HyPEraCtiVE? HeY, WhO aRE YoU cALliNg HypERaCtIve?!
aBRiGgS at wEStNeT.cOm.aU
----------------------------------------------------