On Sat, Jun 22, 2019 at 9:45 PM Matthew Butterick <m...@mbtype.com> wrote:
> > > On 06 22 19, at 6:14 AM, Robby Findler <ro...@cs.northwestern.edu> wrote: > > One thing you can do, when the place-specific communication takes > multiple steps is to, like you did in the first example, put the > channels into a hash, but then on each iteration of the loop, pull all > of them out and put them into a giant select that takes the relevant > step forward for that specific piece of the communication > > > Not sure what you mean by "giant select" — ought that be "giant sync"? > Right, thanks. But as for "sequential access to some shared state" — In this toy example, > maybe more along the lines of your suggestion, the server makes a random > sequence of workers and triggers the workers in turn, so none of them are > ever working at the same time. (So they could, in principle, all be writing > to a single file.) > > I can imagine a more nuanced version involving each worker chekcing out > sets of files, and the server permitting progress by more than one worker > at a time, so long as the file sets didn't overlap. > > > I'm attaching an example of what I was trying to get at for your consumption. Hope you find it useful. Robby -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Racket Users" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to racket-users+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/racket-users/CAL3TdOOaWJeWDCf8hcZ771CgRemrVj3YMiuh0458t5Gd5Z2XBw%40mail.gmail.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
places-example.rkt
Description: Binary data
