- From: chris nuernberger <cnuernber@gmail.com>
- Date: Fri, 8 Mar 2013 10:55:06 -0700
- To: David Junger <tffy@free.fr>
- Cc: "www-voice@w3.org (www-voice@w3.org)" <www-voice@w3.org>
Received on Friday, 8 March 2013 17:55:37 UTC
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? Chris 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