[786] in Coldmud discussion meeting

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

Re: fork() vs send()

daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Fri Aug 25 14:26:55 1995 )

From: Chuck Adams <cadams@weather.Brockport.EDU>
To: brandon@avon.declab.usu.edu (869683 Gillespie Brandon James)
Date: Fri, 25 Aug 1995 12:24:03 -0600 (MDT)
Cc: coldstuff@MIT.EDU
In-Reply-To: <9508202121.AA08082@avon.declab.usu.edu> from "869683 Gillespie Brandon James" at Aug 20, 95 03:21:11 pm

869683 Gillespie Brandon James drew these hieroglyphs:
> < 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
> < difference.
> How do you know this?  I havn't even written it yet.
> Besides, whether the task exists or not is irrelevant, it still has to
> duplicate the current execution frame.  The task itself is just a pointer
> to that frame.  If I were to implement it with delay, it would exist from
> the second it was forked in the task list, because it would exists as an
> execution frame.

ah.  i was going off of MOO.  Then again, delayed forked tasks may
very well exist before beginning.  I'm really not sure anymore,

Can't think of a situation where it's relevant, either -- I thought I
did, but not anymore.

I used to be uncertain, now I'm not sure.