Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!umich!samsung!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!lavaca.uh.edu!uhnix1!sugar!ficc!peter From: peter@ficc.ferranti.com (Peter da Silva) Newsgroups: comp.lang.scheme Subject: Re: technical implementation details in language interface Message-ID: Date: 24 Aug 90 11:36:04 GMT References: <9008231801.AA27169@schizo> Reply-To: peter@ficc.ferranti.com (Peter da Silva) Organization: Xenix Support, FICC Lines: 16 In article <9008231801.AA27169@schizo> gjc@mitech.com writes: > Actually CALL/CC may be an ideal way of dealing with X-Window application > programming at the XT level, which forces an EXPLICIT control model > because of the need for procedures called by XtAppMainLoop to return > "immediately". An explicit-control scheme interpreter which did > a certain quantum of work (for efficiency purposes) in a procedure > posted via XtAppAddWorkProc would be a workable way of dealing with this. Ack. So the solution to programming in X is to install a mid-70s-Forth style non-pre-emptive O/S in every application. Why not go all the way and implement threads? (Personally, I'd like to see threads become a relatively common part of C runtimes. The mechanism required to implement threads should also open the door to CALL/CC and all sorts of other interesting constructs. (I would guess off the top of my head that doing threads on top of call/cc would be a snap) -- Peter da Silva. `-_-' +1 713 274 5180. 'U` peter@ferranti.com