Re: :zz: The !@#$% forking data: General solution impossible?

[Andrew Pam <xanni@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On Fri, Apr 02, 1999 at 11:10:20PM +0900, Ted Nelson wrote:
> The other alternative I could see would be to isolate
>  what was needed: specifying some subset of data 
>  that the forked processs would be working from,
>  and zip its results back in later.

Ah, yes.  Good point; that would work too.

> This is, however, sadly context-specific.  Something
>  really need and general would be nice.

That's why I didn't initially mention it.

> But that may not be possible: the results of parallel
>  processes ripping through the fabric of cells in
>  idiosyncratic ways could be ever so destructive.
> 
> I think this means we have to figure what sub-methods
>  can be handled by what means.

I don't presently see any simple solution for the general case, except
to note that these are traditional problems of parallelism and there's
no reason we can't implement traditional solutions such as semaphores,
locks, queues, mailboxes and other kinds of inter-process messages as
Zigzag cells.  If anything it might make them more visual and hence
perhaps easier to understand.

Cheers,
	*** Xanni ***
-- 
mailto:xanni@xxxxxxxxxx                         Andrew Pam
http://www.xanadu.com.au/                       Chief Scientist, Xanadu
http://www.glasswings.com.au/                   Technical Editor, Glass Wings
http://www.sericyb.com.au/sc/                   Manager, Serious Cybernetics
P.O. Box 26, East Melbourne VIC 8002 Australia  Phone +61 3 96511511