You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
Simply put: when we clone an execution, we currently share the old locals object between all clones. Any changes in a parallel clone will be reflected in concurrently-executing clones.
For a long time, we talked about using some sort of forking-data-structure (the equivalent of lexical scopes, but temporal) for locals-storage.
One alternative that's at the front of my mind, because I like anything simple, is to shallow-copy the locals every time the execution is cloned. This, however, leaves no recourse for modifying temporally-up-stream associations (basically, it makes us Just As Evil As CoffeeScript™.)
One last point of interest: don't forget how association-shadowing comes into play, here. Since we're considering shallow-copying the locals, that means all the associations would be the same: we could modify the existing association to reflect the change into all clones; or shadow the association to affect only the current clone. (Sounds like a solution?)
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
Simply put: when we clone an execution, we currently share the old
locals
object between all clones. Any changes in a parallel clone will be reflected in concurrently-executing clones.For a long time, we talked about using some sort of forking-data-structure (the equivalent of lexical scopes, but temporal) for locals-storage.
One alternative that's at the front of my mind, because I like anything simple, is to shallow-copy the locals every time the execution is cloned. This, however, leaves no recourse for modifying temporally-up-stream associations (basically, it makes us Just As Evil As CoffeeScript™.)
One last point of interest: don't forget how association-shadowing comes into play, here. Since we're considering shallow-copying the locals, that means all the associations would be the same: we could modify the existing association to reflect the change into all clones; or shadow the association to affect only the current clone. (Sounds like a solution?)
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: