Paradigms for CGI application development?

[Jeremy Howard]

On Sat, 9 Nov 2002 09:27:39 +1100 (EST), "Timothy S. Nelson"
<wayland at smartchat.net.au> said:
> On Wed, 6 Nov 2002, Michael Stillwell wrote:
> > 1. Because Perl doesn't make it very convenient to jump (or transfer
> >    control) to the *middle* of a function (actually, I'm not sure
> >    that this is even possible), you need to break your functions in
> >    two whenever you seek user input.  So in the example above, the
> >    code following the call to confirm()  must appear in a separate
> >    function. Another shitty consequence of this is that you must
> >    supply the "return address" to confirm() yourself:
>
> I've probably done too much Programming Language Theory and not enough
> Perl, but it strikes me that this would be a wonderful thing for
> co-routines. However, these days, it seems like most people do things
> with threads instead of co-routines.  And I doubt Perl has co-routines,
> although I could be wrong :).
>
Yes, very co-routinish. When we were nutting out the RFCs on
perl6-language, there was a lot of interest in co-routines, and Damian
wrote this:
  http://dev.perl.org/rfc/31.html

There's also RFC 27, covering similar territory.

There continues to be an interest in coroutines amongst the Perl6
community and IIRC Dan plans to incorporate the necessary features into
Parrot.

-- 
  Jeremy Howard
  jhoward at fastmail.fm