Path: utzoo!utgpu!water!watmath!clyde!att!osu-cis!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!bloom-beacon!mit-eddie!bbn!rochester!pt.cs.cmu.edu!k.gp.cs.cmu.edu!lindsay
From: lindsay@k.gp.cs.cmu.edu (Donald Lindsay)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c++
Subject: Re: co-routine concept in C++?
Message-ID: <3304@pt.cs.cmu.edu>
Date: 14 Oct 88 20:19:11 GMT
References: <649@laura.UUCP> <1191@ssc-bee.ssc-vax.UUCP>
Sender: netnews@pt.cs.cmu.edu
Organization: Carnegie-Mellon University, CS/RI
Lines: 17

In article <1191@ssc-bee.ssc-vax.UUCP> lee@ssc-vax.UUCP (Lee Carver) writes:
>It seems to me that an object, by
>it self, of its very nature, constitues a co-routine.
>Am I missing some (archane :-) definition of "co-routine"ness.  


A coroutine should have a stack, so that when it resumes, it can 
- be anywhere in its code space (rather than at a single entry point)
- be at some procedure nesting level from the entry point
- still have the local variables it was using, without having
  to design them into the (relatively, global) data part of the object.
- be resumed in a utility routine which isn't conceptually part of the
  object (like, the IO system)

Yes, you can fake it, but the fakes lose most of the advantages.
-- 
Don		lindsay@k.gp.cs.cmu.edu    CMU Computer Science