Hi, there is only one reason I can imagine to close a channel: the one in charge determined that there is not more input. And the one in charge is either the producing side, or a kind of supervisor. In the latter case a separate way of communication is needed to inform the sender, that they should stop sending. This could be done via the channel. Or something completely separate.
I haven't used core.async much. I'm trying to understand myself what useful patterns are. Do you have a simple use case, where the pattern you describe (a supervisor closes an input channel without notifying senders about it) is the most straight-forward way? (All that doesn't mean that core.async couldn't be modified as you suggest.) Meikel -- -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Clojure" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] Note that posts from new members are moderated - please be patient with your first post. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/clojure?hl=en --- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Clojure" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
