Extending Functionality: mdisp
Fri Mar 21 19:12:44 CET 2003
On Thu, 20 Mar 2003 23:34:17 -0500
Shawn Pearce <> wrote:
> Chris Pressey <> wrote:
> > If my hunch *is* on target, then mdisp might serve as a good basis for
> > a compromise between processes and objects, such as what might be
> > desirable for a GUI, or a simulated world. Any thoughts on this?
> One - why do we have to put processes asleep?
We don't. (that's why mdisp is a user contrib and not a part of OTP)
> I've been watching this thread with interest, wondering what will come
> of it. I'm praying its not another bastard semi-threaded /
> semi-not-threaded system. :)
I'm praying it is. (if you've been watching the thread you've probably
noticed I'm interested in "Everything is a process, except what isn't,
except everything is treated the same regardless of that" - or "bastard
semi-threaded semi-not-threaded", if you like)
If you don't like it, don't use it, simple as that.
More information about the erlang-questions