[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [sc-dev] call-backs, co-routines and inversion of control

So which steps does your commits cover? If it doesn't add or improve
any functionality, I'd suggest putting it in a separate branch instead
of pushing half-finished work to the master branch. This way, someone
can continue working on it later, and it could even be a place for
wilder experimentation and evaluation of this behaviour, since it
doesn't affect the main development branch. There's already a couple
of such interesting branches of experiments in the repo, like my
SubProcess stuff, for example :)

On Sun, Jan 6, 2013 at 11:37 PM, Julian Rohrhuber
<julian.rohrhuber@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> I still have those commits sitting around which would arguably make a good first step for a later more thorough implementation of this behaviour. I'd like to either push it or throw it away, because later on it will become useless - any suggestions? It currently mainly lacks an appropriately differentiated latency implementation (but this is the case with the current s.bind, too, so it doesn't take anything away.
>
> For reference, here is the patch.
>



-- 
/Jonatan
http://kymatica.com

_______________________________________________
sc-dev mailing list

info (subscription, etc.): http://www.beast.bham.ac.uk/research/sc_mailing_lists.shtml
archive: https://listarc.bham.ac.uk/marchives/sc-dev/
search: https://listarc.bham.ac.uk/lists/sc-dev/search/