Kyle Lahnakoski
Wed, 05 Apr 2000 10:49:09 -0400

Jason Marshall wrote:

> >> Well, let me ask you this question:  Are you set on implementing 
> this
> >> feature
> >> at the language level, or is it sufficient to do so in your standard
> >> libraries?
> >
> >I am not to sure I know what you mean.  I would like the semantics of
> >broadcasting to be different than the semantics of unicasting.  Right
> >now, logically, broadcasting is an instruction that has global scope.
> >If this instruction is a library instruction, or part of hard code
> (hard
> >code is the name of source code in any language but Object Code) has
> >very little distinction.  If you mean to have global broadcasting
> >objects, objects that perform the work of broadcasting, I do not like
> >that.  Broadcasting, to me, only has two object speakers and
> listeners;
> >there is no third transport mechanism that is an implementation
> detail.
> I meant the latter.

I did not like it a first and I discussed it with a friend of mine.  I
have come to the conclusion that there is a broadcaster object, an
object responsible for receiving all broadcasts.  I have my compiler
intercepting any use of the broadcaster object and making appropriate
code for it. 

To answer the original question: library or language level?  I think my
answer is both.  Right now there is no such broadcaster object, the
compiler intervenes explicitly.  Eventually there will be a broadcaster
object, but it will not be useful until I get a better compiler.  My
current compiler could broadcast via broadcaster object now, but it is
very stupid and will make very inefficient code.

Kyle Lahnakoski                                  Arcavia Software Ltd.
(416) 892-7784