Skip to content

Conversation

kelunik
Copy link
Member

@kelunik kelunik commented Jan 13, 2017

No description provided.

*
* One iteration of the loop is called one "tick". A tick covers the following steps:
*
* 1. Activate watchers created / enabled in the last tick / before `run`.
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

With `run` you are referencing the method? Please suffix () then to make this more obvious.

Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Fixed.

* 1. Activate watchers created / enabled in the last tick / before `run`.
* 2. Execute all enabled defer watchers.
* 3. Execute all due timers, each timer only once per tick.
* 4. Execute actionable stream watchers, each only once per tick.
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Uh, there is no order guarantee between timers and stream watchers. Merge these two into a single step.

Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Fixed, once per tick should be fine?

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

yes, that's fine.

*
* 1. Activate watchers created / enabled in the last tick / before `run()`.
* 2. Execute all enabled defer watchers.
* 3. Execute all due timer and actionable stream callbacks, each only once per tick.
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Can signals be executed at any time or should they be included in this step? All current implementations execute pending signals only in this step, but should that be part of the spec?

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Yes, they should. Missed that.

Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Changed.

@bwoebi bwoebi merged commit 5249aa6 into master Jan 28, 2017
@kelunik kelunik deleted the define-tick branch January 29, 2017 07:55
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants