On Fri, Mar 28, 2014 at 8:08 AM, Peter Taoussanis <ptaoussa...@gmail.com> wrote: > Hi Tim, thanks for the info! > > It's not clear to me that this is the same issue, unfortunately. (Though I > may be missing something obvious). > > In the example I've provided above, we're actually creating a _new_ channel > for each take. The problem appears to be either some interaction between the > loop and core.async that I'm not aware of, or something on the > _implementation-end_ that is bumping up against the referenced issue (i.e. > an insufficiently-buffered channel somewhere). > > So there's actually no channel here that I could be buffering, since it's > not my channel that's overflowing. Again, modulo me missing something > obvious :-) > > Does that make sense?
Ah, forgive me for not seeing the subtlety and getting excited about being able to help in some small way on a core.async problem. :) Can one of the adults chime in? -- In Christ, Timmy V. http://blog.twonegatives.com/ http://five.sentenc.es/ -- Spend less time on mail -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Clojure" group. To post to this group, send email to clojure@googlegroups.com Note that posts from new members are moderated - please be patient with your first post. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to clojure+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com 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 clojure+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
