Achim Gratz <strom...@nexgo.de> writes: > Eric Schulte writes: >> Can you check if this change causes any of the existing tests to fail? > > I don't think there is a test for that, at least I don't remember > anything in that direction. However when implementing my earlier change > w.r.t. confirmation I noticed that merging the parameters early has > potential for triggering execution of source blocks that would otherwise > lay dormant until the execution of the current block was already > confirmed. As I said, I have no idea if this behaviour is intended, but > that was reason enough for me not to try to "optimize" this away. The > behaviour Aaron tries to implement is maybe more sane, but it does alter > some corner cases and I can't tell how practically relevant this is. > But if we want to change it then I agree that the time is now. >
I'm happy with the current implementation, even if it is a couple of lines longer, it has the benefit of having been used in production for a time and proven itself (sufficiently) bug free. So lets discard this patch and stick with the current for now. Thanks, > > > Regards, > Achim. -- Eric Schulte http://cs.unm.edu/~eschulte
