W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-voice@w3.org > January to March 2013

Re: revised mainEventLoop

From: chris nuernberger <cnuernber@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 8 Mar 2013 10:55:06 -0700
Message-ID: <CAG=GWvfpWL=qfJgOf0=ALDy=NnejzzSZtjyhNMj3jPR1n-oUHA@mail.gmail.com>
To: David Junger <tffy@free.fr>
Cc: "www-voice@w3.org (www-voice@w3.org)" <www-voice@w3.org>
I see what you are saying and you are correct as far as I can tell, this is
more efficient.  Don't you need a second while loop for external events
that gets called if enabled transitions is empty?


On Fri, Mar 8, 2013 at 10:10 AM, David Junger <tffy@free.fr> wrote:

> Le 8 mar 2013 à 17:32, chris nuernberger a écrit :
> > Furthermore you could have conditions in the datamodel which have
> changed thus enabling eventless transitions even though to an outside
> observer you are testing the same eventless transition set over and over
> again.
> The SC itself can't do anything while you're just dequeuing events from
> the internal queue. So any change to the datamodel (except for _event) will
> have to be done by the platform, which should know better than to allow
> them in the middle of an event loop. Or by side-effects in event
> conditions. But please let's assume the platform is safe enough and the
> authors aren't hacking with side-effects. That means the only thing
> changing in the whole SC, while dequeueing events as I suggested, is _event.
>                         David

A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds - Emerson
Received on Friday, 8 March 2013 17:55:37 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:07:43 UTC