Path: csiph.com!eternal-september.org!feeder.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.forth
Subject: Re: POSIX vs Forth cooperative tasker
Date: Wed, 31 Aug 2016 17:06:12 -0700
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 14
Message-ID: <87y43co557.fsf@jester.gateway.pace.com>
References: <7fddacae-373d-4cd5-a857-f4ae00486388@googlegroups.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
Injection-Info: mx02.eternal-september.org; posting-host="7bfc8f5b1c0c0e2e29d3a5c3abe51644"; logging-data="11723"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1/r3E78vzAlULgqFm7mvqPb"
User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.3 (gnu/linux)
Cancel-Lock: sha1:RPsZEeiRivk5INuxRnLUoKPcftU= sha1:9bLqI4Y37mdedNzLujbPxWbZxoA=
Xref: csiph.com comp.lang.forth:50586

foxaudioresearch@gmail.com writes:
> I would be interested to see if there is overlap in name choice and
> functionality and if others believe we should get some of this
> "standardized".

I had the impression that lots of people have been interested in
standardizing multi-tasking, but there was not enough agreement between
interested parties to agree on a specification.  

It would be nice if you could post some documentation of your word set.
I remember being impressed by how simple the eForth multi-tasker is.

I notice your word set doesn't seem to say anything about communication
between tasks, via mailboxes or whatever.