> Assuming messages are not reordered. ah, the easy problems can be taken care of by using 1 clunker and a clunk channel with a fixed buffer. i'd like to know more about charles' correctness concerns. not that this particular example is all that useful. cf. nemo
> My argument is that I'd like the operation to be able to fail in > general, and to be > synchronous, so I could get an error status (despite caches being > placed in the middle). - erik
