Re: floating point time scheduling

[Marcus G. Daniels]

>>>>> "PJ" == Paul E Johnson <address@hidden> writes:

PJ> In that pjrepeater series, there was one that had the swarms in a
PJ> swarm example, each with its own schedule.  I did some time trials
PJ> and found the model ran faster with just the master schedule in
PJ> the higher swarm and the lower level things added their actions to
PJ> the bigger swarm's schedule (dynamic scheduling).  In other words,
PJ> I think Marcus is correct.

Performance concerns should be delayed until a problem is understood.
I wasn't trying to make any point about performance.

The reason I suggest a shared schedule is because I think it will
be complicated to get merging tiered schedules while preserving 
ordered merging for the fractional values.  It's a problem that
the pjrepeater test programs don't address. 

However, I must admit I haven't really thought about how to combine
custom synchronization policies on tiered schedules.

And of course, there is a trivial way to get floating point time values:
scale the numbers up.


                  ==================================
   Swarm-Support is for discussion of the technical details of the day
   to day usage of Swarm.  For list administration needs (esp.
   [un]subscribing), please send a message to <address@hidden>
   with "help" in the body of the message.