Re: RFC 47 (v1) Universal Asynchronous I/O

On Mon, 07 Aug 2000, Uri Guttman wrote:

> i haven't seen any talk about threads since the thread rfc was
> posted. all the energy i see (i am not subscribed to all the lists) is
> in higher order functions and odd stuff. but flow control is much more
> fundamental and will be used by a wider range of hackers. damian said
> this stuff isn't sexy and i have to sell it with shorter rfcs.

Check out the new threads.... sexy!

So far, I haven't seen anything that I drastically disagree with. 
(Mainly because I just care that they get in a little deeper than in 5.)

It's hard to really comment on the actual implementation, because it
really seems to tie into a lot of other decisions that haven't been
made yet.  (RFC 1 was assuming minimalistic changes to the internals,
which is appearing to be more and more invalid.  Not that that's bad,
but *I* certainly wasn't going to suggest it.)

So I'm more or less holding my tongue as opposed to trying to hit a
moving target.

-- 
Bryan C. Warnock
([email protected])