Re: DYNAMIC-WIND vs. multi-processing

["Guillermo J. Rozas" <gjr@martigny.ai.mit.edu>]

The following message bounced due to a disk being full.  Sorry for the
inconvenience.

   ----- Unsent message follows -----
Received: from MC.LCS.MIT.EDU by martigny.ai.mit.edu with SMTP
	(1.37.109.4/15.6) id AA00171; Wed, 12 May 93 08:54:11 -0400
Return-Path: <@sun2.nsfnet-relay.ac.uk:jeff@aiai.edinburgh.ac.uk>
Received: from sun2.nsfnet-relay.ac.uk by mc.lcs.mit.edu id aa07436;
          12 May 93 8:53 EDT
Via: uk.ac.edinburgh.aiai; Wed, 12 May 1993 13:51:42 +0100
Date: Wed, 12 May 93 13:53:44 BST
Message-Id: <29424.9305121253@subnode.aiai.ed.ac.uk>
From: Jeff Dalton <jeff@aiai.edinburgh.ac.uk>
Subject: Re: DYNAMIC-WIND vs. multi-processing
To: Aubrey Jaffer <jaffer@martigny.ai.mit.edu>
In-Reply-To: Aubrey Jaffer's message of Tue, 11 May 93 23:32:56 -0400
Cc: rrrs-authors@mc.lcs.mit.edu

>    From: jar@cs.cornell.edu (Jonathan Rees)
>    Date: Tue, 11 May 93 13:10:39 -0400

>    If you believe, as Mr. Jaffer apparently does, that it must be
>    possible to write a scheduler in portable Scheme, then I would tend to
>    agree that the low-level non-winding version of CWCC is necessary.

>    I'm not sure I buy that premise, however.  It seems pretty useless to
>    have tasks without pre-emption;
> 
> What about co-routines?  Everything I said about multiple processes
> applies to co-routines.

Hear, hear!  And it is possible (surely) to write coroutines (and a
non-pre-emptive scheduler, if you want one) in portable Scheme.

-- jd