Re: The checksum statement ++

[Martin Pala]

Jan-Henrik Haukeland wrote:

> Martin Pala <address@hidden> writes:
>
>  
>
> > And what about the first proposal, send today 12:43 (generalization
> > of timeout statement and timeout event hard error classification +
> > its broadcasting through dependency tree)?
> >    
>
> It's not bad but I feel it's a bit of a workaround to connect it to
> timeout. But as you mentioned having an event (especially checksum)
> propagate upwards in the dependency tree is important. Maybe using a
> new STOP_MONITORING event or something is better (cleaner)? I don't
> know.
It was exactly my first though :) Then i figured out, that probably 
'timeout' event is simplier and will do the same work.

> I need to investigate your proposal and the control.c code more to see
> it better. But right now, I think we could doucment us out of the
> problem and maybe refactor the code in a later 4.1 version. What do
> you think?
>
>  
Yes, it is possible, no problem. This could involve lot of changes and 
it is not critical for 4.0 => we don't need to implement it now. Though 
i preffer to solve it in 4.0 - it is more logical then present behavior 
+ it can involve (small) language change and it could be better to do it 
at once. I can implement it as soon as i'll be back. Please choose what 
you like better :)