--- AnyEvent-MP/MP.pm	2009/08/05 23:50:46	1.34
+++ AnyEvent-MP/MP.pm	2009/08/06 10:21:48	1.35
@@ -25,6 +25,14 @@
    rcv $port, [child_died => $pid] => sub { ...
    rcv $port, [_any_, _any_, 3] => sub { .. $_[2] is 3
 
+   # linking two ports, so they both crash together
+   lnk $port1, $port2;
+
+   # monitoring
+   mon $port, $cb->(@msg)      # callback is invoked on death
+   mon $port, $otherport       # kill otherport on abnormal death
+   mon $port, $otherport, @msg # send message on death
+
 =head1 DESCRIPTION
 
 This module (-family) implements a simple message passing framework.
@@ -620,15 +628,15 @@
 
 =head1 AnyEvent::MP vs. Distributed Erlang
 
-AnyEvent::MP got lots of its ideas from distributed erlang (erlang node
-== aemp node, erlang process == aemp port), so many of the documents and
-programming techniques employed by erlang apply to AnyEvent::MP. Here is a
+AnyEvent::MP got lots of its ideas from distributed Erlang (Erlang node
+== aemp node, Erlang process == aemp port), so many of the documents and
+programming techniques employed by Erlang apply to AnyEvent::MP. Here is a
 sample:
 
-   http://www.erlang.se/doc/programming_rules.shtml
-   http://erlang.org/doc/getting_started/part_frame.html # chapters 3 and 4
-   http://erlang.org/download/erlang-book-part1.pdf      # chapters 5 and 6
-   http://erlang.org/download/armstrong_thesis_2003.pdf  # chapters 4 and 5
+   http://www.Erlang.se/doc/programming_rules.shtml
+   http://Erlang.org/doc/getting_started/part_frame.html # chapters 3 and 4
+   http://Erlang.org/download/Erlang-book-part1.pdf      # chapters 5 and 6
+   http://Erlang.org/download/armstrong_thesis_2003.pdf  # chapters 4 and 5
 
 Despite the similarities, there are also some important differences:
 
@@ -649,11 +657,11 @@
 needs a queue. AEMP is event based, queuing messages would serve no useful
 purpose.
 
-(But see L<Coro::MP> for a more erlang-like process model on top of AEMP).
+(But see L<Coro::MP> for a more Erlang-like process model on top of AEMP).
 
 =item * Erlang sends are synchronous, AEMP sends are asynchronous.
 
-Sending messages in erlang is synchronous and blocks the process. AEMP
+Sending messages in Erlang is synchronous and blocks the process. AEMP
 sends are immediate, connection establishment is handled in the
 background.
 
@@ -666,10 +674,10 @@
 AEMP guarantees correct ordering, and the guarantee that there are no
 holes in the message sequence.
 
-=item * In erlang, processes can be declared dead and later be found to be
+=item * In Erlang, processes can be declared dead and later be found to be
 alive.
 
-In erlang it can happen that a monitored process is declared dead and
+In Erlang it can happen that a monitored process is declared dead and
 linked processes get killed, but later it turns out that the process is
 still alive - and can receive messages.
 
@@ -679,7 +687,7 @@
 
 =item * Erlang can send messages to the wrong port, AEMP does not.
 
-In erlang it is quite possible that a node that restarts reuses a process
+In Erlang it is quite possible that a node that restarts reuses a process
 ID known to other nodes for a completely different process, causing
 messages destined for that process to end up in an unrelated process.
 
@@ -695,7 +703,7 @@
 =item * The AEMP protocol is optimised for both text-based and binary
 communications.
 
-The AEMP protocol, unlike the erlang protocol, supports both
+The AEMP protocol, unlike the Erlang protocol, supports both
 language-independent text-only protocols (good for debugging) and binary,
 language-specific serialisers (e.g. Storable).
 
@@ -703,6 +711,21 @@
 with a minimum of work while gracefully degrading fucntionality to make the
 protocol simple.
 
+=item * AEMP has more flexible monitoring options than Erlang.
+
+In Erlang, you can chose to receive I<all> exit signals as messages
+or I<none>, there is no in-between, so monitoring single processes is
+difficult to implement. Monitoring in AEMP is more flexible than in
+Erlang, as one can choose between automatic kill, exit message or callback
+on a per-process basis.
+
+=item * Erlang has different semantics for monitoring and linking, AEMP has the same.
+
+Monitoring in Erlang is not an indicator of process death/crashes,
+as linking is (except linking is unreliable in Erlang). In AEMP, the
+semantics of monitoring and linking are identical, linking is simply
+two-way monitoring with automatic kill.
+
 =back
 
 =head1 SEE ALSO