Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Give clear semantics and fix implementation of Interruptible monad #300

Closed
bkase opened this issue Jul 13, 2018 · 2 comments · Fixed by #6889
Closed

Give clear semantics and fix implementation of Interruptible monad #300

bkase opened this issue Jul 13, 2018 · 2 comments · Fixed by #6889

Comments

@bkase
Copy link
Member

bkase commented Jul 13, 2018

No description provided.

@bkase bkase added the planning-for-testnet Issues that should be closed prior to test net launch label Jul 17, 2018
@emberian emberian changed the title Give clear semantics and fix implementation of Interruptible monad (see ledger-builder-controller) Give clear semantics and fix implementation of Interruptible monad Jul 25, 2019
@emberian
Copy link
Contributor

To add some background to this issue, there has in the past been some confusion around exactly what the interruptible monad does. Also maybe there's a bug of some sort? @bkase do you remember what the story is here?

@emberian emberian added brandon to triage bug daemon medium and removed planning-for-testnet Issues that should be closed prior to test net launch labels Jul 25, 2019
@bkase
Copy link
Member Author

bkase commented Jul 26, 2019

It's not very clear what happens when an interrupt fires, and bind is extremely complex. As far as I'm aware, this does "work" enough that we haven't needed to touch it in a while, but it's a bit too complicated to live without either (a) really nice documentation or (b) a simpler implementation (and probably both)

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging a pull request may close this issue.

3 participants