From: Mark Hahn <mchahn@...>
Date: 2001-12-20T11:42:12+09:00
Subject: [ruby-talk:29050] Re: A Ruby programmer walked into a bar and ordered a Ruby-Thread


>without the sleeps, but with priorities set differently

In this situation, correct behaviour if for the higher priority thread to
run all the time and the lower one to never run.  At any moment whichever
requesting thread has higher priority should be running.

Have you ever worked with prioritized interrupts?  A lower priority
interrupt NEVER interrupts a higher priority task.  This is the same with
threads.

-----Original Message-----
From: dave@thomases.com [mailto:dave@thomases.com]On Behalf Of Dave
Thomas
Sent: Wednesday, December 19, 2001 5:34 PM
To: ruby-talk ML
Subject: [ruby-talk:29046] Re: A Ruby programmer walked into a bar and
ordered a Ruby-Thread


"Mark Hahn" <mchahn@facelink.com> writes:

> I don't understand the problem.  I just ran this on windows:
>
> Thread.new {loop{print 'a';sleep(0.1)}}
> Thread.new {loop{print 'b';sleep(0.214)}}
> sleep(2)

Try it without the sleeps, but with priorities set differently. Under
Unix, and with big enough loop values, the threads will loop in
accordance with their priorities. Under Windows, one gets exclusive
control.


Dave