[racket] Re-inventing dataflow languages

Tony, 

that was my initial reaction (point to Tony's world-generalization). 

An alternative is to have network take different groups of clauses: the first one for handlers triggered at t = 0, the second one for handlers to be added after the signal is thru at the other end. I am thinking of generalizing presence/absence here from your current model because John may have to generalize this idea yet more. Do send him a copy of your submission. 

-- Matthias





On Oct 12, 2012, at 2:22 PM, Tony Garnock-Jones wrote:

> On 10/11/2012 07:26 PM, John Clements wrote:
>> I can imagine doing something more complicated, but what I really want to ask is this: for those of you with experience in other dataflow languages, how do they solve this?
> 
> The systems I've worked with have used a delay node in the graph rather than your previous-value idea. If the delay is nonzero (positive), it can be placed into a feedback cycle. You still have the problem of specifying what value to use for the delay until the first signals make it through to the other end, but it could be a less roundabout way of thinking about the problem?
> 
> (define simple-ctr
> (network ()
>          [out (delay (add1 out) 1 #:init 0)]))
> 
> vs
> 
> (define simple-ctr
> (network ()
>          [out (add1 (delay out 1 #:init 0))]))
> 
> Regards,
>  Tony
> ____________________
> Racket Users list:
> http://lists.racket-lang.org/users

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/pkcs7-signature
Size: 4373 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.racket-lang.org/users/archive/attachments/20121012/fda70ed2/attachment-0001.p7s>