Extending Functionality: mdisp

Chris Pressey <>
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 mailing list