[#11890] Ruby and Solaris door library — "Hiro Asari" <asari.ruby@...>

Hi, there. This is my first patch against ruby. I think I followed

19 messages 2007/08/13
[#11892] Re: Ruby and Solaris door library — Daniel Berger <djberg96@...> 2007/08/14

Hiro Asari wrote:

[#11899] pack/unpack 64bit Integers — Hadmut Danisch <hadmut@...>

Hi,

13 messages 2007/08/14
[#11903] Re: pack/unpack 64bit Integers — Brian Candler <B.Candler@...> 2007/08/15

On Wed, Aug 15, 2007 at 06:50:01AM +0900, Hadmut Danisch wrote:

[#11948] Fibers in Ruby 1.9? — David Flanagan <david@...>

I just noticed that my ruby1.9 build of August 17th includes a Fiber

22 messages 2007/08/22
[#11949] Re: Fibers in Ruby 1.9? — Daniel Berger <djberg96@...> 2007/08/22

David Flanagan wrote:

[#11950] Re: Fibers in Ruby 1.9? — "Francis Cianfrocca" <garbagecat10@...> 2007/08/22

On 8/22/07, Daniel Berger <djberg96@gmail.com> wrote:

[#11952] Re: Fibers in Ruby 1.9? — MenTaLguY <mental@...> 2007/08/22

On Wed, 22 Aug 2007 20:50:12 +0900, "Francis Cianfrocca" <garbagecat10@gmail.com> wrote:

[#11988] String#length not working properly in Ruby 1.9 — "Vincent Isambart" <vincent.isambart@...>

I saw that Matz just merged his M17N implementation in the trunk.

17 messages 2007/08/25
[#11991] Re: String#length not working properly in Ruby 1.9 — "Michael Neumann" <mneumann@...> 2007/08/25

On Sat, 25 Aug 2007 10:54:20 +0200, Yukihiro Matsumoto

[#11992] Re: String#length not working properly in Ruby 1.9 — Yukihiro Matsumoto <matz@...> 2007/08/25

Hi,

[#12042] Encodings of string literals; explicit codepoint escapes? — David Flanagan <david@...>

This message contains queries that probably only Matz can answer:

16 messages 2007/08/31
[#12043] Re: Encodings of string literals; explicit codepoint escapes? — Yukihiro Matsumoto <matz@...> 2007/08/31

Hi,

coroutines with Fiber::Core

From: David Flanagan <david@...>
Date: 2007-08-22 18:49:51 UTC
List: ruby-core #11960
The following code works on Linux with today's snapshot of 1.9:

f = g = nil

f = Fiber::Core.new { |x|
   puts "F1: #{x}"
   x = g.transfer(x+1)
   puts "F2: #{x}"
   x = g.transfer(x+1)
   puts "F3: #{x}"
}

g = Fiber::Core.new { |x|
   puts "G1: #{x}"
   x = f.transfer(x+1)
   puts "G2: #{x}"
   x = f.transfer(x+1)
}


f.transfer(100)


It prints:

F1: 100
G1: 101
F2: 102
G2: 103
F3: 104


You can also use the higher-level Fiber (instead of Fiber::Core) API, 
but I don't understand it as well:

g = Fiber.new { |x|
   puts "G1: #{x}"
   x = Fiber.yield(x+1)   # Can't use resume here: double resume error
   puts "G2: #{x}"
   x = Fiber.yield(x+1)
}

f = Fiber.new { |x|
   puts "F1: #{x}"
   x = g.resume(x+1)
   puts "F2: #{x}"
   x = g.resume(x+1)
   puts "F3: #{x}"
}

f.resume(100)

These seem more interesting that continuations, so I understand why Matz 
would say that Fibers are more likely to stay in 1.9 than continuations are.

	David

In This Thread

Prev Next