Now that makes more sense. But, it seems that it's not that you're missing continuations (though those would certainly help) ... it's like you're missing a layer of control over the stream itself. My naive thought was that I could tell the stream "Don't process another chunk ... I'm still working on the one you just gave me, but I need to be able to do other stuff, too." Maybe, naive is the word for it.

It sounds like there's the need for a event listener. Each stream would issue events and the listener would reap them, as appropriate. Every time an event from a stream is reaped, the stream is informed and it can then send up another event to be reaped.

The callback part of this would be that you register with the listener that you're interested in XYZ event from streams A, B, and C. The listener would discard any event from the streams that is not being listened for by anybody.

Does this already exist? Can this exist? (Well, I'm pretty sure it can, cause that's how modern OS's work ...)

------
We are the carpenters and bricklayers of the Information Age.

Don't go borrowing trouble. For programmers, this means Worry only about what you need to implement.

Please remember that I'm crufty and crochety. All opinions are purely mine and all code is untested, unless otherwise specified.


In reply to Re4: Are you looking at XML processing the right way? (merge) by dragonchild
in thread is XML too hard? by thraxil

Title:
Use:  <p> text here (a paragraph) </p>
and:  <code> code here </code>
to format your post; it's "PerlMonks-approved HTML":