Yes. That would be a perfect description of Coro's coroutines. Though "coroutines" is better, if for no other reason than it is a term that isn't associated with MS, as fibres (wrongly) are. It's also an older and very well understood term in CS circles.
But I think that is to ignore the political aspect of the Coro pod. Anyone who includes vitriol like this in a module's documentation, is obviously too far gone for rationality.
A great many people seem to be confused about ithreads (for example, Chip Salzenberg called me unintelligent, incapable, stupid and gullible, while in the same mail making rather confused statements about perl ithreads (for example, that memory or files would be shared), showing his lack of understanding of this area - if it is hard to understand for Chip, it is probably not obvious to everybody).
Especially as what Chip Salzenberg said is correct. At least as far as memory and file handles are concerned; they are shared within a single process space. Access is controlled and limited only at the language level; not the kernel or processor level. As for his remarks about the author, I don't know him so I couldn't make comment; but I suspect that anyone with even a cursory understanding of ithreads has long since drawn their own conclusions.
The only lack of understanding regarding ithreads is clearly demonstrated by the author. Though I suspect his "confusion" is, at least in part, political rather than genuine.
In reply to Re^3: Why Coro?
by BrowserUk
in thread Why Coro?
by xiaoyafeng
| For: | Use: | ||
| & | & | ||
| < | < | ||
| > | > | ||
| [ | [ | ||
| ] | ] |