Re^42: Why is EO undefined? (More details!)

Without extra syntax, separate statements means serialisation. Compound expressions permit concurrency without extra syntax.

See. Right there. We're working off of a complete different set of assumptions. What in the world makes you think the above quote is true? Are you talking about a particular parallel language you haven't mentioned? (Is there a parallel/array dialect of Perl out there?) Because in the general case that statement is false, if for no other reason than it is overly general.

Comment on Re^42: Why is EO undefined? (More details!)

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^43: Why is EO undefined? (More details!) by Anonymous Monk on Apr 18, 2005 at 16:15 UTC
I think the main problem is that BrowserUk doesn't have any practial experience with an actual concurrent language. That seems to be the root cause for most of the misunderstandings.	[reply]
A reply falls below the community's threshold of quality. You may see it by logging in.
Re^43: Why is EO undefined? (More details!) by BrowserUk (Patriarch) on Apr 18, 2005 at 19:51 UTC
I'll concede one thing here--the 'can' or 'could' should have appeared within the seconds sentence, with respect to Perl--but it is valid as is for (some) other languages. Examine what is said, not who speaks -- Silence betokens consent -- Love the truth but pardon error. Lingua non convalesco, consenesco et abolesco. Rule 1 has a caveat! -- Who broke the cabal?	[reply]