Module system strawpersons
brendan at mozilla.com
Mon Jan 18 20:40:15 PST 2010
On Jan 18, 2010, at 6:14 PM, Kam Kasravi wrote:
> I guess Brendan is saying that if a continuation was natively built
> ar the '.' then the risk is that not acquiring the resource would
> result in a zombie. But if the runtime could build a continuation at
> the '.' then it could come back to it when the resource was
> acquired. Brendan is that layman's description or did I get it wrong?
That's not wrong, but it does not consider the preemption point.
Scripts in browsers today (event handler or timeout functions, same
deal) run to completion. They do not race or nest event loops (bugs
notwithstanding). So you can be sure a global variable you've just set
to 42 will still be 42 after a call to a function.
We could break this model at the . whose left-hand side was (import M)
but should we?
Neil Mix's NarrativeJS used -> instead, to signify the difference. I
do not propose we break the run-to-completion model implicitly, or add
explicit syntax for doing so. At least not without a lot more
> On Jan 18, 2010, at 5:52 PM, ihab.awad at gmail.com wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 18, 2010 at 5:43 PM, Oliver Hunt <oliver at apple.com> wrote:
> It's also horrific in the context of a browser as it's effectively
> an arbitrary
> length call blocked on IO.
> That's a good description of what I was proposing. Yes it would block
> the event loop. Perhaps it could be useful if (say) the module were
> available in a local disk cache but not loaded into memory: the cost
> of I/O to a disk cache may be reasonable, but not the cost of a
> completely new fetch from the network.
> Ihab A.B. Awad, Palo Alto, CA
> es-discuss mailing list
> es-discuss at mozilla.org
More information about the es-discuss