link on the generators page, question about yield

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
2 messages Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

link on the generators page, question about yield

Neil Mix
One of the PEP links on the generators page is incorrect -- it points  
to PEP-324 which is about launching sub-processes.  (It should really  
point to PEP-342.)  Further confusing things is that the similarly-
named PEP-234 just happens to be about iterators, and it also just  
happens to be linked from PEP-255, which is in turn linked from the  
generators page.  In a rare combination of bad circumstances and  
uninformed reading, someone could hypothetically make a faulty  
assumption about where the bad link is supposed to point, and  
therefore fail to comprehend how trampolining can be used to  
implement stackless threading.

When said reader finally reads the correct document and spends some  
time grokking it, I'll bet he decides that generators are sufficient  
and there's no compelling reason to push for a more full-blown  
concurrency mechanism.  But he might also be too embarrassed to  
publicly admit his earlier gaffe.

Hypothetically speaking, of course.

   -Neil

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: link on the generators page, question about yield

Neil Mix
Oh, and I have no question about yield.  I answered it myself while  
writing the email.

On Sep 19, 2006, at 8:53 PM, Neil Mix wrote:

> One of the PEP links on the generators page is incorrect -- it  
> points to PEP-324 which is about launching sub-processes.  (It  
> should really point to PEP-342.)  Further confusing things is that  
> the similarly-named PEP-234 just happens to be about iterators, and  
> it also just happens to be linked from PEP-255, which is in turn  
> linked from the generators page.  In a rare combination of bad  
> circumstances and uninformed reading, someone could hypothetically  
> make a faulty assumption about where the bad link is supposed to  
> point, and therefore fail to comprehend how trampolining can be  
> used to implement stackless threading.
>
> When said reader finally reads the correct document and spends some  
> time grokking it, I'll bet he decides that generators are  
> sufficient and there's no compelling reason to push for a more full-
> blown concurrency mechanism.  But he might also be too embarrassed  
> to publicly admit his earlier gaffe.
>
> Hypothetically speaking, of course.
>
>   -Neil
> _______________________________________________
> Es4-discuss mailing list
> [hidden email]
> https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es4-discuss