From: Tom Locke (tsl2_at_email.domain.hidden)
Date: 2000-12-05 09:42:10
At 11:34 01/12/00 -0700, Campbell, John wrote:
>Having looked at your slides, I like the thinking. I do, however,
>have some misgivings. Perhaps one of the theoretical types can
>comment on this, maybe set me straight. But it seems to me that
>CSP lacks the power to describe an object passing through a pipe.
There's a lot that CSP can't describe isn't there? occam does a lot that
you can't do in CSP.
Sending processes down channels:
In occam, there is no way to get a handle on a process, only its channels,
so there would be no way to go about sending a process down a channel. I'm
thinking on the same lines - there will be no 'process names' in this language.
Here's how it works. There's an operator along the lines of OO's 'new'
which launches a process and returns a channel record containing this
processes interface. When we talk about sending a process down a channel,
we are actually sending the channel record. Analogously, in OO we always
talk about passing objects around, whereas we actually pass references to
objects around.
The send has a 'move' semantics - the sender no longer has the record. Only
one (serial) client ever holds the channel record.
>The problem is that it's not much of an object if you have to sever
>its existing channel connections before sending it.
Could you elaborate on this?
Thanks,
Tom.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.7 on 2004-10-31 20:03:55 GMT
© Copyright WoTUG
All rights reserved