Re: ELisp futures and continuations/coroutines

[Mohsen BANAN]

>>>>> On Fri, 20 May 2011 03:23:57 +0200, Thien-Thi Nguyen <address@hidden> 
>>>>> said:

  Thien-Thi> A "future type" w/o this detail well-defined is no better than
  Thien-Thi> a simple closure (IMHO) because it has no concept of time / timing.

If the point is that:
  
   This is not a case of either or, but both.

then, I agree.

In which case if there is meaningful room for
layering, then great! But, I don't suspect much.

In any case, here is a pointer to a C fsm
interface, documentation and examples that I built
and used (in RFC-2188, RFC-2524, ...) 15 years ago.

   http://www.neda.com/PLPC/110301#x1-1520006.19

I am in no way suggesting its inclusion.

But the documentation is relatively good and may
be worth reusing.

...Mohsen