Re: C++, pcall, and yield

["Adam D. Moss" <adam@...>]

Roberto Ierusalimschy wrote:
> It is *very* well thought out. As such, we need some time to digest
> it :)
>
> Something like Coco solves the problem in a much simpler and a little
> more generic way. But, yes, it is not portable, and so we do not intend
> to incorporate it to the Lua core. But we still feel uneasy to add that
> complexity in the core to solve something that can be solved in a much
> simpler way by external means. (Maybe time may cure our uneasiness...)

Maybe digesting both approaches will magically inspire a third
approach which is both simple and portable. :)

I think, however, that LuaJIT will always require 'real'
C-coroutine support for yielding from JIT'd code, hence an
unbreakable Coco dependence there (unless you want yielding
to be even pickier than regular Lua - I live with this but
it's a bit fiddly); I don't think the RVM approach can cut
it as-is.  I guess Mike would know for sure.

Given the choice of yield-anywhere and JIT, I'd reluctantly
have to choose JIT.  (On my system these are mutually exclusive,
but that's a rarity - some lucky Coco-loving platforms get
both :) ).

--adam