-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 107
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
loop and short-circuiting #166
Comments
Sure, that would be consistent with other parts of the API, I just hadn't ever considered someone would try something like this. PR is welcome, otherwise I'll get to it when I can. |
@ztellman I started working on PR. master...prepor:patch-1 For this primitive case it works. Then I put
Then I realized that short-circuiting doesn't work for nested chains too:
Is this could be considered as a bug or? |
You'll want the |
@ztellman yes, it makes sense, fixed. But it doesn't fix issues which I described previously. |
If we had a reified topology of deferreds (like we do streams), we could potentially walk upstream when a given deferred is cancelled and cancel everything that feeds only into that cancelled deferred. Since we don't, there's no easy, general way to address either of the cases you mention. Barring a major reengineering of Manifold, I think we have to be content with the simple cancellation case working. |
Hello. Is this code supposed to stop loop execution?
Currently, it loops forever and for me, it looks as broken API. Maybe
loop
should checkresult#
before each tick?The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: