undefined | Better HN

0 pointsgpderetta5y ago0 comments

it is not an implementation detail at all. The syntax and semantics are very different. Stackfull coroutines allow suspending more than one activation frame (i.e. a subset of the callstack) in one go. You can of course "emulate" it with stack less coroutines by converting each frame in the call stack to a coroutine, but it is a manual and intrusive process.

0 comments

hctaw5y ago

I think if your syntax and semantics imply the stack-ness of your coroutine implementation then you you have a language design problem. Coroutines are subroutines with two additional primitives (resume after call, and yield before return). Whether `yield`/`resume` imply stack swapping or a state transition between activation frames is just an implementation detail. Both have tradeoffs, to be sure.

gpderettaOP5y ago

> I think if your syntax and semantics imply the stack-ness of your coroutine implementation then you you have a language design problem

A lot of languages, including C#, python, C++, rust and many others specify the stackless-ness of coroutines. So it is not just an implementation detail. You could argue that specifying these semantics is a problem, and I would actually agree, but obviously it is not something many, if not most, language designers agree.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse

0 comments

hctaw5y ago

gpderettaOP5y ago

> I think if your syntax and semantics imply the stack-ness of your coroutine implementation then you you have a language design problem

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse