elliottcable changed the topic of #Paws.Nucleus to: http://Paws.mu — coming soon™ ... or not.
<purr\Paws> [Issues] devyn opened issue #14: `branch[]` is nearly useless for cloning oneself https://github.com/Paws/Issues/issues/14
<purr\Paws> [Issues] devyn comment on issue #14: Possible solution: current `branch[]` becomes `clone[]`, and new `branch[]` clones the caller *and advances the clone*.... https://github.com/Paws/Issues/issues/14#issuecomment-50303718
<purr\Paws> [Issues] devyn comment on issue #4: This is still an issue, by the way, and I've run into it with Paws.rs a little bit. I'm actually not even sure why the examples run just fine on the parallel reactor, because they shouldn't... but maybe things are just executing so quickly that it ends up working? https://github.com/Paws/Issues/issues/4#issuecomment-50304535
alexgordon has joined #Paws.Nucleus
alexgordon has quit [Client Quit]
alexgordon has joined #Paws.Nucleus
<purr\Paws> [Issues] ELLIOTTCABLE comment on issue #14: So, that solution from last night: definitely won't work. Two reasons:... https://github.com/Paws/Issues/issues/14#issuecomment-50405502
<purr\Paws> [Issues] ELLIOTTCABLE opened issue #15: Discard all ordering constraints, except responsibility https://github.com/Paws/Issues/issues/15
<purr\Paws> [Issues] ELLIOTTCABLE comment on issue #4: Well, this is exactly the thing that, if you look at it one way, stops being an issue, if we're discarding ordering *anyway*. All this issue is really saying is that the implicit-ordering system that sort of exists in the current spec, really provides nothing useful: if the above example is so flawed that we need to invoke responsibility to make it predictable (which, by the way, is the solution t