-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 419
Promise extends IVar #270
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
Merged
Merged
Promise extends IVar #270
Changes from all commits
Commits
Show all changes
15 commits
Select commit
Hold shift + click to select a range
b87a794
Promise extends IVar
jdantonio e789622
IVar and Promise can be set with a block.
jdantonio 700ddcb
Promise#set now calls #execute.
jdantonio 49f6718
Added shared specs for IVar, Future, and Promise.
jdantonio 9e3a27f
Obligation shared specs now called from IVar shared specs.
jdantonio c7984f3
Dereferenceable shared specs now called from IVar shared specs.
jdantonio e037eed
Observable shared specs now called from IVar shared specs.
jdantonio ff77ec7
Added IVar#set? to unify Channel::Probe.
jdantonio 850dff7
Channel::Probe is now just an IVar.
jdantonio e6527f8
IVar is now a Synchronization::Object.
jdantonio c23b4e3
Delay is now Synchronization::Object but is slower.
jdantonio a9da183
Moved mutex unlocking into ensure clauses.
jdantonio 14d4598
Minor refactoring and doc updates.
jdantonio 65ee9f6
Renamed IVar #set? method to #try_set to be more idiomatic.
jdantonio 1314eda
Better documentation.
jdantonio File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
There are no files selected for viewing
This file contains hidden or 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
This file contains hidden or 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
This file contains hidden or 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
This file contains hidden or 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
This file contains hidden or 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
This file contains hidden or 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
This file contains hidden or 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
This file contains hidden or 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
This file contains hidden or 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
Oops, something went wrong.
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.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Since delay is migrated to
Delay < Synchronization::Object
it probably should be using its methodsynchronize
, is there a reason for usingmutex
which I am missing?There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
It is using the
#synchronize
method fromSynchronization::Object
, it's just doing so through a level of indirection. See line 64.Delay
includesObligation
which also includesDereferenceable
, the latter of which creates its own mutex within the#init_mutex
function. I've added an argument to both#init_obligation
and#init_mutex
that allows the mutex to be injected.Delay
passesself
into those initialization functions, thus allowing the delay object to be its own lock. The#mutex
method returnsself
. Themutex.synchronize
call on line 150 is actuallyself.synchronize
.There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Ah right, I've missed that. It seems unnecessarily complicated, but I am not sure if it makes sense to invest time in refactoring it - I still hope that the new futures will replace this class soon.