Hi,
On Jul 8, 4:53 pm, Brian Hurt wrote:
> A better API for this particular use suggested itself to me: simply allow
> the state to be nil, and require the functions that are sent initialize the
> state if necessary. Code like:
>
> (defn my_f [ state ]
> (let [ state (or state (init-functio
A better API for this particular use suggested itself to me: simply allow
the state to be nil, and require the functions that are sent initialize the
state if necessary. Code like:
(defn my_f [ state ]
(let [ state (or state (init-function)) ]
...
In this case, it doesn't matter whic
2010/7/8 Brian Hurt
>
>
> On Wed, Jul 7, 2010 at 5:46 PM, Ryan Waters wrote:
>
>> On Wed, Jul 7, 2010 at 4:32 PM, Meikel Brandmeyer wrote:
>> > Hi,
>> >
>> > Am 07.07.2010 um 23:11 schrieb Ryan Waters:
>> >
>> >>> (send a init-function)
>> >>> (send a f))
>> >>
>
On Wed, Jul 7, 2010 at 5:46 PM, Ryan Waters wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 7, 2010 at 4:32 PM, Meikel Brandmeyer wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > Am 07.07.2010 um 23:11 schrieb Ryan Waters:
> >
> >>> (send a init-function)
> >>> (send a f))
> >>
> >> It's not guaranteed the init-func
On Wed, Jul 7, 2010 at 4:32 PM, Meikel Brandmeyer wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Am 07.07.2010 um 23:11 schrieb Ryan Waters:
>
>>> (send a init-function)
>>> (send a f))
>>
>> It's not guaranteed the init-function will complete before f.
>
> I doubt that. Since only one action ca
Hi,
Am 07.07.2010 um 23:11 schrieb Ryan Waters:
>> (send a init-function)
>> (send a f))
>
> It's not guaranteed the init-function will complete before f.
I doubt that. Since only one action can be active at a time and the ordering is
preserved, init-function wi
On Wed, Jul 7, 2010 at 3:46 PM, Brian Hurt wrote:
> I'm wondering if the following pattern is safe or not. I'm in a
> transaction, and I want to create an agent and then send it an initializing
> message (the message function isn't transaction-safe, so I don't want to run
> it in the transaction)
On Wed, Jul 7, 2010 at 5:04 PM, Meikel Brandmeyer wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Am 07.07.2010 um 22:46 schrieb Brian Hurt:
>
> > I'm wondering if the following pattern is safe or not. I'm in a
> transaction, and I want to create an agent and then send it an initializing
> message (the message function isn't
Hi,
Am 07.07.2010 um 22:46 schrieb Brian Hurt:
> I'm wondering if the following pattern is safe or not. I'm in a transaction,
> and I want to create an agent and then send it an initializing message (the
> message function isn't transaction-safe, so I don't want to run it in the
> transaction
