<div class="gmail_quote">On Thu, Jan 21, 2010 at 3:14 AM, Andrei Alexandrescu <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:andrei@erdani.com">andrei@erdani.com</a>></span> wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="PADDING-LEFT: 1ex; MARGIN: 0px 0px 0px 0.8ex; BORDER-LEFT: #ccc 1px solid">
<div class="im">Kevin Bealer wrote:<br></div>
<div class="im">
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="PADDING-LEFT: 1ex; MARGIN: 0px 0px 0px 0.8ex; BORDER-LEFT: #ccc 1px solid">So lets say that threads will normally fall into the three camps, that I'll call producers, filters and processors.<br>
</blockquote></div>[snip]
<div class="im"><br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="PADDING-LEFT: 1ex; MARGIN: 0px 0px 0px 0.8ex; BORDER-LEFT: #ccc 1px solid">Main could check if it has any dependents, if desired... (these last bits is kind of off the cuff, so maybe there are huge problems with them.)<br>
</blockquote><br></div>This makes sense, but at this point I'd avoid classifications that don't have a precedent. If Erlang made it without thread kinds, we should too.
<div>
<div></div>
<div class="h5"><br><br><br>Andrei</div></div></blockquote>
<div> </div>
<div>Just to clarify, I wasn't proposing that threads be labelled as to what type they are and handled differently by the language or system. I'm just defining some terms so that I can reason about their behavior. My argument was just that a user writing main typically needs to keep track of the producers in some way to insure that his design behaved predictably.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Now that I mention it, this really includes any object that might produce an important flow of data without being triggered to do so by an incoming message. Message originators might be a better term than Producers.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Kevin</div>
<div> </div></div>