17 Feb
2005
17 Feb
'05
9:43 a.m.
James McDermott wrote:
hmm..., maybe you
right. I had something working about 2 years ago --
then called muzz :) -- and that spent most of it's time doing that tree
thingy. But it was probably a bad way of doing it in general.. there is
alos this thing about inputs and outputs or more general connectors and
how to handle the logics behind them..
mimo
--
Please note that this account is being filtered using anti UCE systems.
If you send email to this account make sure that it could not be
mistaken as UCE.
oh - you wrote miXo - of course. (i wrote a peer
machine or two.) go buzz devs!
i think everyone who's ever used buzz for more than a couple of hours
wants a new, stable, cross-platform version. (and there are *loads* of
re-implementation projects, including at least one linux one.) i even
have some semi-formed plans myself...
..want to go into more detail?
A lot of time is spent on finding the processing
order. But this only
needs to be done once in a while.
i'd be very surprised by that (i haven't looked at any code though).
surely it's a very light task, computationally? i'm thinking that if
the machine network is represented by a tree, just a depth-first
search through the tree gets you the right processing order?