[E-Lang] Why Not Coroutines? (was: Deadlock-free [was what is good about E?])

Mark S. Miller markm@caplet.com
Thu, 19 Jul 2001 08:55:27 -0700


At 07:03 AM Thursday 7/19/01, Jonathan S. Shapiro wrote:
>> Dan Moniz writes:
>>
>> Those 2 web pages describe coroutines, but Mark is talking about
>> coroutine *threads* aka user or cooperative threads.
>> Different things.  Eg, unless I'm really missing something, one cannot
>> have one coroutine blocked on I/O while another coroutine is busy.
>
>We are running into a fundamental confusion about the meaning of the term
>"thread".

This is just too amusing a correction to pass up.  There's yet another 
meaning of thread, which is the email thread, in which there are also 
several assumptions in the air, twisting around each other, that can get 
confused with each other.  In particular, Richard wrote the above paragraph 
after including quotes from Dan and myself.  More accurate would be:

At 11:03 PM Wednesday 7/18/01, Richard wrote:
>Dan Moniz writes:
>>[...]
>
>Those 2 web pages describe coroutines, but Mark is talking about
>coroutine *threads* aka user or cooperative threads.
>Different things.  Eg, unless I'm really missing something, one cannot
>have one coroutine blocked on I/O while another coroutine is busy.


        Cheers,
        --MarkM