Email list hosting service & mailing list manager

SRFI 181: Custom ports Arthur A. Gleckler (16 Feb 2020 08:03 UTC)
Re: SRFI 181: Custom ports Lassi Kortela (16 Feb 2020 14:01 UTC)
Re: SRFI 181: Custom ports Lassi Kortela (21 Feb 2020 23:24 UTC)
Re: SRFI 181: Custom ports John Cowan (22 Feb 2020 19:19 UTC)
Re: SRFI 181: Custom ports Vincent Manis (17 Feb 2020 23:04 UTC)
Re: SRFI 181: Custom ports John Cowan (18 Feb 2020 17:51 UTC)
Re: SRFI 181: Custom ports Arthur A. Gleckler (18 Feb 2020 18:22 UTC)
Re: SRFI 181: Custom ports John Cowan (19 Feb 2020 12:42 UTC)
Re: SRFI 181: Custom ports Arthur A. Gleckler (19 Feb 2020 18:11 UTC)
Re: SRFI 181: Custom ports Lassi Kortela (19 Feb 2020 18:13 UTC)
Re: SRFI 181: Custom ports Arthur A. Gleckler (19 Feb 2020 18:17 UTC)
Re: SRFI 181: Custom ports Lassi Kortela (19 Feb 2020 18:30 UTC)
Re: SRFI 181: Custom ports Arthur A. Gleckler (19 Feb 2020 18:51 UTC)
Re: SRFI 181: Custom ports Vincent Manis (19 Feb 2020 22:57 UTC)
Re: SRFI 181: Custom ports Jim Rees (04 Mar 2020 12:36 UTC)
u8-ready? and char-ready? Lassi Kortela (04 Mar 2020 12:46 UTC)
Re: u8-ready? and char-ready? Jim Rees (04 Mar 2020 13:09 UTC)
Re: u8-ready? and char-ready? Lassi Kortela (04 Mar 2020 13:30 UTC)
Re: u8-ready? and char-ready? Jim Rees (04 Mar 2020 14:48 UTC)
Re: u8-ready? and char-ready? Marc Feeley (04 Mar 2020 15:07 UTC)
Re: u8-ready? and char-ready? Lassi Kortela (04 Mar 2020 15:13 UTC)
Re: u8-ready? and char-ready? Marc Feeley (04 Mar 2020 15:31 UTC)
Re: u8-ready? and char-ready? Marc Nieper-Wißkirchen (04 Mar 2020 15:39 UTC)
Re: u8-ready? and char-ready? Marc Feeley (04 Mar 2020 15:49 UTC)
SRFI 18 implementation status - R5RS/R7RS Schemes Lassi Kortela (04 Mar 2020 16:08 UTC)
Re: SRFI 18 implementation status - R5RS/R7RS Schemes Lassi Kortela (04 Mar 2020 16:13 UTC)
Re: SRFI 18 implementation status - R5RS/R7RS Schemes Marc Feeley (04 Mar 2020 16:18 UTC)
Re: SRFI 18 implementation status - R5RS/R7RS Schemes Lassi Kortela (04 Mar 2020 16:26 UTC)
Re: SRFI 18 implementation status - R5RS/R7RS Schemes Lassi Kortela (04 Mar 2020 16:28 UTC)
Re: SRFI 18 implementation status - R5RS/R7RS Schemes Marc Feeley (04 Mar 2020 16:46 UTC)
Re: SRFI 18 implementation status - R5RS/R7RS Schemes Lassi Kortela (04 Mar 2020 17:03 UTC)
Re: SRFI 18 implementation status - R5RS/R7RS Schemes John Cowan (04 Mar 2020 23:23 UTC)
Re: SRFI 18 implementation status - R5RS/R7RS Schemes Marc Feeley (05 Mar 2020 13:08 UTC)
Re: SRFI 18 implementation status - R5RS/R7RS Schemes John Cowan (05 Mar 2020 20:44 UTC)
Re: SRFI 18 implementation status - R5RS/R7RS Schemes Göran Weinholt (05 Mar 2020 22:16 UTC)
Re: SRFI 18 implementation status - R5RS/R7RS Schemes John Cowan (05 Mar 2020 22:22 UTC)
Re: SRFI 18 implementation status - R5RS/R7RS Schemes Arthur A. Gleckler (04 Mar 2020 19:26 UTC)
Re: u8-ready? and char-ready? Lassi Kortela (04 Mar 2020 15:07 UTC)
Re: u8-ready? and char-ready? Marc Feeley (04 Mar 2020 15:31 UTC)
Re: u8-ready? and char-ready? Jim Rees (04 Mar 2020 15:32 UTC)
Waiting on custom ports / CL Gray Streams Lassi Kortela (04 Mar 2020 15:41 UTC)
Re: u8-ready? and char-ready? John Cowan (04 Mar 2020 17:18 UTC)
Re: u8-ready? and char-ready? Lassi Kortela (04 Mar 2020 17:26 UTC)
Re: u8-ready? and char-ready? Marc Feeley (04 Mar 2020 14:55 UTC)
Re: SRFI 181: Custom ports Jim Rees (04 Mar 2020 19:31 UTC)
Re: SRFI 181: Custom ports John Cowan (05 Mar 2020 00:36 UTC)
Re: SRFI 181: Custom ports Jim Rees (05 Mar 2020 21:53 UTC)
Re: SRFI 181: Custom ports John Cowan (05 Mar 2020 22:08 UTC)

Re: u8-ready? and char-ready? Marc Feeley 04 Mar 2020 15:31 UTC

> On Mar 4, 2020, at 10:07 AM, Lassi Kortela <xxxxxx@lassi.io> wrote:
>
> The language should probably have one central (wait ...) procedure that waits for one or more things of assorted kinds. That facility could be extensible somehow to cover user-defined port or data types. It would be quite complex to specify, and a reliable specification might have to depend on environmental factors like OS threads vs green threads vs single-threaded, implementation of continuations, etc. Marc has a ton of pertinent experience, whereas I shouldn't be allowed to touch a spec on the topic :)

If “wait” is the fundamental primitive for waiting it is a bad idea because sooner or later you will have to implement a custom thread system on top of it to funnel all the various “waiting operations” of your program to the “wait” procedure.

A better design is for the Scheme implementation’s thread system to be in charge of the funneling (because it is the thing that knows about all the threads and their requests for waiting).

Marc