Re: RFC: Safe Signals

>>>>> "CF" == Chaim Frenkel <[email protected]> writes:

  CF> I haven't seen where in the _language_ there is anything about how to
  CF> implement. I don't think there should be. 

well i see it. delivery mechanisms cross the langauge/implementation
boundary.

  CF> Where in the language is there any mention of op codes? Why are you
  CF> bringing it in?

that is what safe and synchronous mean. it is a language issue that a
signal cannot be delivered in the middle of a s///. in perl5 that can
happen, in perl6 that cannot. that is a language issue and it brings op
codes and perl operators into the picture. the semantics being where in
time can a signal be delivered.

  CF> Keep it at a language level. If the semantics are hard to implement
  CF> then go back to the drawing board.

it it not about how hard it is to implement, but how hard it is to hide
implementation details from the language specs. in this case it is very
hard. signals are messy.

uri

-- 
Uri Guttman  ---------  [email protected]  ----------  http://www.sysarch.com
SYStems ARCHitecture, Software Engineering, Perl, Internet, UNIX Consulting
The Perl Books Page  -----------  http://www.sysarch.com/cgi-bin/perl_books
The Best Search Engine on the Net  ----------  http://www.northernlight.com