Re: "Stackless" XEmacs?
"Jerry James" <james(a)xemacs.org> writes:
On Tue, Apr 29, 2008 at 11:47 PM, Stephen J. Turnbull
<stephen(a)xemacs.org> wrote:
> Another interesting idea from emacs-devel.
>
> dhruva writes:
> > If we are looking at concurrency, there is another paradigm based on
> > maintaining multiple internal function call stacks which a scheduler
> > can schedule in some fair fashion. I am talking of stackless Python
> > implementation. You really do not have multiple threads but get
> > simulated concurrency through stack switching. For IO intensive usage
> > using async IO with stackless might make a good candidate.
> >
> > -dhruva
The word "stackless" appears to be a misnomer. Any idea where that came from?
Their web material isn't very clear, but I'm assuming that's because
they don't use a stack representation for continuations (i.e. what most
people just call "the stack" in traditional implementations). In
particular, heap-based and partially heap-based implementations of
continuations have much lower space and time costs for things like
threads.
Will Clinger's paper contains a good survey:
http://www.springerlink.com/content/h5808n962434j275/fulltext.pdf
(Most Scheme implementations, as they have to support
`call-with-current-continuation', also use an implementation strategy
for continuations other than pure stacks.)
--
Cheers =8-} Mike
Friede, Völkerverständigung und überhaupt blabla
_______________________________________________
XEmacs-Beta mailing list
XEmacs-Beta(a)xemacs.org
http://calypso.tux.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/xemacs-beta