[reactive] Can we do without delayed switching?

[Conal Elliott]

Hi Patai,

If I understand correctly, what you're describing is something that I intend
Reactive to handle well, and it doesn't yet.  In other words, I think the
problem you ran into is just an implementation bug, not a problem with
semantics or interface.

Regards,  - Conal

On Wed, Mar 4, 2009 at 12:39 PM, Patai Gergely <patai_gergely at fastmail.fm>wrote:

> > I would model this as the position being the integral of the ball's
> > velocity, and switch the velocity, this way, you don't need to do
> > complicated things with trying to grab the position from the last
> > section of the behavior.
> I tried that too, but the result was the same. I don't see how that
> would help anyway, since integral is just a stepper over an accumE. I
> even tried a function-valued behaviour that had to be supplied time
> explicitly, which did move at least, but still <<loop>>-ed, so it never
> switched.
>
> > Re delayed switching, Reactive already has a kind of delayed
> > switching, that happens automatically when necessary.  If you attempt
> > to take the value of a Reactive value at the exact moment of a switch,
> > you will receive the value from the previous step.
> Oh yes, now I went back to the 'Simply efficient...' paper, and it says
> so indeed. I just misunderstood that part (off by one thinking, as
> always ;). However, the problem still remains, because it's not only the
> new value that depends on the current one but the time of switching as
> well. This knot is apparently too tight for the time being.
>
> Gergely
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.haskell.org/pipermail/reactive/attachments/20090304/7e8d05e5/attachment.htm