Re: stackless proposal (from WIKI)

Lenard wrote:

> Sure. If there were some way to tie this "coupler" into a generator
> then the "yield" keyword can go away. Maybe creating a generator
> instance
> causes a "yield" coupler object to be created that is accessed through
> the call stack:
>
> <verbatim>
> thread fib(n):
>     sum, prev = 1, 0
>     for i in n:
>         caller.yield.send(sum)
>         sum, prev = sum + prev, sum
> </verbatim>
> ----
> Mark:
> The purpose of a coupler is to allow one thread to switch to another
> thread by connecting them together, but a generator only involves one
> thread calling another in a restartable way. I don't think a coupler
> would be involved with a generator.  The yield operation is specific
> to a generator and I don't see any problem keeping it the way it is.

It has taken a week for it to sink into my thick skull, but I finally
realized that you are correct.  A generator with a yield statement is
exactly the same same as co-routines where the next() call is mating up with
the yield statement like two channel.transfer() calls.

I have expanded your idea into a full proposal for how to do the stackless
language implementation using your thread and yield keywords.  I'll put it
up on the Wiki.