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
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
____________________ Racket Users list: http://lists.racket-lang.org/users
