Talk:User defined pipe and redirection operators: Difference between revisions
Content added Content deleted
(→Yet another task without a task: the "&" operator is a language "kudos" if achieved.) |
|||
| Line 17: | Line 17: | ||
:::BTW you don't need to actually do any message passing, or multitasking. It can be done totally within one process using co-procedures. |
:::BTW you don't need to actually do any message passing, or multitasking. It can be done totally within one process using co-procedures. |
||
:::However (I believe) the "&" operator requires at least threads. And... I just figured out how to define "&" in Algol68... cheers! :-) I'll make the "&" operator a language "kudos" if achieved. |
:::However (I believe) the "&" operator requires at least threads. And... I just figured out how to define "&" in Algol68... cheers! :-) I'll make the "&" operator a language "kudos" if achieved. |
||
::::This is starting to sound like an OS [[wp:Command-line_interface|CLI]] implementation task... That said, yes, unix trailing & (as opposed to &&) requires either threading or coroutines. That said, & could be implemented as "defer this operation until you have nothing else to do", in a single threaded environment -- this is equivalent to a time-slice implementation where backgrounded tasks do not get any resources (or to a perceived behavior similar to that of a time slice implementation under heavy load). --[[User:Rdm|Rdm]] 13:11, 13 September 2011 (UTC) |
|||
Adhere to the syntax of the specific language where required, eg the use of brackets and names of operators. |
Adhere to the syntax of the specific language where required, eg the use of brackets and names of operators. |
||