Let feedback effects start immediately. #21
Merged
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
`start(on:)` is not essential for breaking signal recursion.
andersio
force-pushed
the
anders/start-immediately
branch
from
b77fd5b to
0090fec
Compare
sergdort
approved these changes
Apr 14, 2018
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
The signal recursion deadlock happens to the new state signal only when we deliver new events synchronously. New events have already been made asynchronous by
observe(on:), which rendersstart(on:)unnecessary in the course of breaking signal recursion.This also makes the behaviour of the system producer (and its
Propertyinitialiser variant) a bit more predictable, in the sense that we can be sure all the feedbacks are started right in place, instead of scheduled asynchronously. This can be important when used in conjunction with timing-sensitive hotSignals.Thanks @p4checo for questioning its necessity.