I think ucontext is an excellent starting point for a general implementation. You just abstract it with a thin veneer and adopt faster implementations as needed where applicable.
[1] https://github.com/spc476/C-Coroutines
[2] In my not-so humble opinion, using signals at all is not wise.
I would love to be wrong though...
I realize the Forth & Lisp heritage might be a bit hard on the brain for those who haven't been exposed before, but what you're asking for is otherwise more or less what Cixl is aiming for.
> To build Cixl yourself, you'll need a reasonably modern GCC and CMake installed.
I was very taken aback by this. Really? Why do you really need to depend on the cmake monstrosity? It's just a few lines of C without dependencies that they are distributing!
If there is something about cixl that will scare people is the ridiculous dependence on cmake, not its clean syntax.
I spent several years trying to bend regular make into something I was happy with; then I spent several years on top of that using Rake, since at least it allowed me to say what I mean in a sane language. Compared to Rake, CMake is at least semi-standard, provides some kind of macro for most things I want to do, and mostly stays out of my way.
But you definitely have a point when it comes to simplicity and project fit. If someone would be willing to step up and help translate the makefile into something that doesn't look horrible, I'd be more than happy to let it go. Otherwise we'll have to wait until I get enough round tuits, which could take a while given how much remains to be done in Cixl.
I take it that cmake tried to tackle autotools, partially succeeded, and partly succumbed to autotools' all-devouring complexity? :)
(I'm genuinely curious about the answer to this question - I'm also looking for something similar to C)
Why do you consider it too big?
Yeah, it is. You can easily avoid the GC as long as you don't mind managing memory yourself (unfortunately this means that you cannot use the stdlib either, or at least parts of it, if you disable the GC with the `--gc:none` flag you'll get warning messages from the compiler about procs that need the GC which is nice).
> I'd also have liked the compiled C code to be readable, which if I'm not mistaken, Nim doesn't do.
Yeah, that's one thing that Nim definitely doesn't do. I don't think there are many languages that do. It would be an interesting experiment to see how pretty you could make the generated C by either fixing things in the compiler or just running a C formatter on it.
