[773] in Coldmud discussion meeting

root meeting help first first in chain previous in chain previous next next in chain last in chain last

Re: fork() vs send()

daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Sun Aug 20 15:42:36 1995 )

From: Chuck Adams <cadams@weather.Brockport.EDU>
To: brandon@avon.declab.usu.edu (869683 Gillespie Brandon James)
Date: Sun, 20 Aug 1995 13:39:03 -0600 (MDT)
Cc: coldstuff@MIT.EDU
In-Reply-To: <9508191819.AA04139@avon.declab.usu.edu> from "869683 Gillespie Brandon James" at Aug 19, 95 12:19:13 pm

869683 Gillespie Brandon James drew these hieroglyphs:
Why the number before your name?

> < 1. Call it something different.  send() just doesn't say 'fork'.
> Actually, it seem's my impression of what send() was suggested as, is wrong.
> They were suggesting send() as an in-db looping speedup, so you could replace:
>   for obj in (object_list) {
>       obj.(method)(@args);
>   }
> With:
>   send(object_list, method, args);

Hmm.. I'm not sure I see the need for it.  The function wouldn't do
anything new, and a general-purpose word like "send" just doesn't hint
at looping either.  And I just write loops like that on one line -- I
had my MOO set up to let me use local copies of my verb source code
when editing, so one-liners like that didn't get expanded to three
lines.  (hint for the MCP folks)

> < 2. An argument for a delay time ala fork (n)
> Hmm, I dunno... I would like to add the delay times to pause(), with the
> default of no args meaning a 0 second pause (just pop me at the back of
> the current task list).  If you forked off, and wanted a delay, just call
> pause() afterwards...

There is a difference.  In a delayed fork, the task doesn't exist
until it runs, and in a fork-then-pause, it does.  This does make a