On Sun, Dec 11, 2011 at 12:54 PM, Mariano Martinez Peck < marianop...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > On Sun, Dec 11, 2011 at 4:35 PM, Stéphane Ducasse < > stephane.duca...@inria.fr> wrote: > >> >> On Dec 11, 2011, at 4:26 PM, Mariano Martinez Peck wrote: >> >> > >> > >> > On Sun, Dec 11, 2011 at 11:32 AM, Stéphane Ducasse < >> stephane.duca...@inria.fr> wrote: >> > Indeed this is fun I was doing the same :) >> > Now I do not understand why some parts of the system uses dataStream, >> others ReferenceStream and finally others SmartRefStream >> > why not all of them use SmartRefStream. >> > >> > It is not that I like these guys, but their class comments are pretty >> clear: >> > - DataStream does NOT handle cycles, but hence it may be faster in >> certain scenarios. I guess that for example, Monticello is sure that in its >> definitions, there cannot be cycles. In addition, it doesn't take into >> account variables names/order and hence class reshape isn't supported. >> > - ReferenceStream supports cycles but still doesn't support class >> reshape. >> > - SmartRefStream supports cycles and class reshape. >> > >> sounds good > > > Yes it does. In fact, I would love also to have those things > optional/configurable in Fuel: optional cycle detection and optional class > reshape support :) > But I don't see any performance cost on "class reshape support", do you? > > >> then we should be able to replace all the reference stream and smart by >> fuel. >> > > Yes, but Fuel is not completly ready to fully replace them. There are some > hooks they provide that Fuel does not yet. But we will get there at some > point. > > >> >> stef >> > > > > -- > Mariano > http://marianopeck.wordpress.com > >
