|language syntax for representing concurrency email@example.com (Thomas Dejanovic) (1996-12-01)|
|Re: language syntax for representing concurrency firstname.lastname@example.org (Brian Silver) (1996-12-03)|
|Re: language syntax for representing concurrency email@example.com (Blair MacIntyre) (1996-12-03)|
|Re: language syntax for representing concurrency firstname.lastname@example.org (1996-12-03)|
|Re: language syntax for representing concurrency email@example.com (Guy Rixon) (1996-12-07)|
|Re: language syntax for representing concurrency firstname.lastname@example.org (Boyana Norris) (1996-12-07)|
|From:||Blair MacIntyre <email@example.com>|
|Date:||3 Dec 1996 20:50:59 -0500|
Thomas Dejanovic <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes:
> Anyway I'm having trouble comming up with a clear readable syntax
> to indicate concurrent processes. I do not want the system to
> start from a single main and spawn all the threads, I want it to
> start up with a number of treads executing concurrently and
> comunicating with each other. These threads need not even be on
> the same machine. however the code describing the threads or the
> calls which invoke them may in fact be in the same file.
> So does anyone have some neat ideas for representing such a
> concept _clearly_ in an OO way in a language ?
Check out uC++, a multithreaded extension to C++. Threads are
objects, and communicate via method calls. No messages and very
little need for explicit locks.
If you inherit from an object of type uTask (or something like that --
I haven't looked at it in years), whenever you instantiate an object
of your type it creates a new thread.
Their manual has a discussion of their design and the design space, as
they see it.
I think you can find info on it off
Blair MacIntyre (email@example.com), Graduate Student (Graphics and UI Lab)
smail: Dept. of Computer Science, 1214 Amsterdam Ave, Mail Code 0401
Columbia University, New York, NY 10027-7003
Return to the
Search the comp.compilers archives again.