(j3.2006) an alternative to Aleks' asynchronous proposal

[Aleksandar Donev]

On Friday 20 June 2008 08:05, Lionel, Steve wrote:
> It is not true that the subroutine "is no longer executing". ?The
> subroutine may (and in this case has) started an asynchronous activity
> that continues execution, potentially, after the call returns.
I understand that, I was making a point about the lack of clarity in the 
language Dick used, making it inappropriate for a standard. We don't have the 
concept of "continuing subroutine execution", and unless we add it, the 
routine is no longer executing, according to our definition of execution 
sequence.
Best,
Aleks