From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on polar.synack.me X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 Path: eternal-september.org!reader01.eternal-september.org!reader02.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!feeder.eternal-september.org!aioe.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: "Dmitry A. Kazakov" Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: Generators/coroutines in future Ada? Date: Mon, 10 Jul 2017 09:33:34 +0200 Organization: Aioe.org NNTP Server Message-ID: References: NNTP-Posting-Host: vZYCW951TbFitc4GdEwQJg.user.gioia.aioe.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Complaints-To: abuse@aioe.org User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.2.1 Content-Language: en-US X-Notice: Filtered by postfilter v. 0.8.2 Xref: news.eternal-september.org comp.lang.ada:47337 Date: 2017-07-10T09:33:34+02:00 List-Id: On 09/07/2017 23:28, Dennis Lee Bieber wrote: > I wouldn't hold out much hope for coroutines. Ada was created from the > start with the concept of independent tasking (all the way back before > 1980!). Formal co-routines (a la Modula-2) do not fit the philosophy as > they are a cooperative "task" switch (in classic co-routines, each routine > determines when it will transfer control to another, and possibly where in > that other transfer goes to -- it was even doable in FORTRAN-IV when > statement labels could be passed in/out of a call). I've never studied the > Python "co-routine" but it does not map to what I consider a co-routine. Instead of co-routine we could talk about non-scheduled tasks or user-scheduled tasks. [What is actually needed is local stack without scheduling overhead.] -- Regards, Dmitry A. Kazakov http://www.dmitry-kazakov.de