One more try
On Feb 21, 9:27 am, Simone Busoli <simone.bus...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I guessed that.
>
>
>
> On Sat, Feb 21, 2009 at 16:26, pb648174 <goo...@webpaul.net> wrote:
>
> > Fixed my google account back to webpaul, just testing. Both webpaul
> > and pb648174 above was same person.
>
> > On Feb 21, 9:19 am, pb648174 <goo...@webpaul.net> wrote:
> > > I just looked at the change below:
>
> > > if (alreadyEnumerated)
> > > return Enumerable.Empty<T>().GetEnumerator();
>
> > > Which I think will also lead to unexpected results. For example, if 3
> > > rows, rows.Count() will return 3 the first time and 0 the second time.
> > > I would expect to be able to iterate the rows each time and get the
> > > data but to not suddenly multiple rows in other operations based on
> > > how many times the rows were iterated. I think if you want to go this
> > > route it should either a) throw an exception that the results are
> > > being enumerated multiple times so these kinds of problems are found
> > > faster during development or b) just allow it to be enumerated
> > > multiple times without duplicating rows in other operations. I'm not
> > > sure if b) is possible without losing the benefit of yield return
> > > flowing through all the operations, that's why I was curious to see
> > > how you solved it.
>
> > > On Feb 21, 8:40 am, Simone Busoli <simone.bus...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > Sure, any feedback is welcome, I'm not sure that what I choose to do is
> > the
> > > > best solution. I simply decorated the enumerable so that it cannot be
> > > > iterated more than once. But if you try to do so, it simply doesn't
> > return
> > > > anything.
>
> > > > On Sat, Feb 21, 2009 at 15:21, pb648174 <goo...@webpaul.net> wrote:
>
> > > > > Ok, that is interesting then, I'll take a look at the changeset and
> > > > > see how you did that.
>
> > > > > On Feb 20, 12:41 pm, Simone Busoli <simone.bus...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > No, the fix didn't change this behavior. The
> > > > > SingleThreadedPipelineExecuter
> > > > > > is still pulling, while the multi threaded is pushing.
>
> > > > > > On Fri, Feb 20, 2009 at 2:15 PM, pb648174 <goo...@webpaul.net>
> > wrote:
>
> > > > > > > The other strange bit of IEnumerable behavior is that if you
> > don't
> > > > > > > iterate the rows passed in the Execute method to an operation,
> > the
> > > > > > > previous operations won't execute. This makes sense once you
> > think
> > > > > > > about how IEnumerable works, but from the context of making an
> > > > > > > operation that does something not involving rows (as perhaps the
> > last
> > > > > > > operation to send an email or something) you can get some
> > unexpected
> > > > > > > results. I made a ProcessAndIgnoreAllInput(rows) { foreach(var
> > row in
> > > > > > > rows); } to get around this but maybe now I can get rid of it.
>
> > > > > > > If you solved this problem by iterating the list no matter what
> > and
> > > > > > > making a copy I think you will have also fixed the above
> > scenario,
> > > > > > > just thought I would mention it.
>
> > > > > > > On Feb 18, 7:30 pm, Simone Busoli <simone.bus...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> > > > > > > > Fixed in revision 2044.
>
> > > > > > > > On Mon, Feb 9, 2009 at 9:27 AM, Ayende Rahien <
> > aye...@ayende.com>
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > +1
>
> > > > > > > > > On Mon, Feb 9, 2009 at 10:22 AM, Simone Busoli <
> > > > > > > simone.bus...@gmail.com>wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > >> If everyone's ok with it I can change the single threaded
> > executer
> > > > > to
> > > > > > > > >> avoid iterating the rows twice.
>
> > > > > > > > >> On Thu, Feb 5, 2009 at 9:19 AM, webpaul <goo...@webpaul.net
>
> > > > > wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > >>> No, I can't see why anyone would want that behavior, it can
> > lead
> > > > > to
> > > > > > > > >>> some unexpected results. If anything I would think the
> > single
> > > > > > > threaded
> > > > > > > > >>> should be made to behave like the multi threaded one. I
> > think if
> > > > > > > there
> > > > > > > > >>> was some reason for that behavior then an option defaulted
> > to off
> > > > > > > > >>> would be best.
>
> > > > > > > > >>> On Feb 4, 11:21 am, Simone Busoli <simone.bus...@gmail.com
>
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > >>> > Yes, that sounds reasonable. Do you think it would be
> > useful to
> > > > > > > enhance
> > > > > > > > >>> the
> > > > > > > > >>> > threaded pipeline executer to make it iterable multiple
> > times?
>
> > > > > > > > >>> > On Wed, Feb 4, 2009 at 3:39 PM, webpaul <
> > goo...@webpaul.net>
> > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > >>> > > When I need to do anything like that I just
> > > > > > > > >>> > > first convert to a List<Row> rowList = new
> > List<Row>(rows);
> > > > > which
> > > > > > > > >>> > > safely interates it once and then I don't need to worry
> > about
> > > > > > > it.-
> > > > > > > > >>> Hide quoted text -
>
> > > > > > > > >>> > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > > > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Rhino Tools Dev" group.
To post to this group, send email to rhino-tools-dev@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
rhino-tools-dev+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/rhino-tools-dev?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
