Yes, I agree.
On Thu, 28 May 2020, 22:11 Steve Ebersole, wrote:
> Wanted to clarify -
>
> Regarding incremental addition of "surround listeners", so long as we are
> all in agreement that this simply means there will be absolutely no
> surround capability ***initially*** then I am fine with
Wanted to clarify -
Regarding incremental addition of "surround listeners", so long as we are
all in agreement that this simply means there will be absolutely no
surround capability ***initially*** then I am fine with that.
On Thu, May 28, 2020 at 4:10 PM Steve Ebersole wrote:
> Hm, the
Hm, the dynamic enable/disable stuff should be easy to handle, no? Depends
on what specific library you are thinking of and exactly how that detail
gets propagated to us. At the end of the day, its really as simple as
protecting the creation of some of these objects with `if (enabled)`-type
On Thu, 28 May 2020 at 21:27, Steve Ebersole wrote:
>
> Any thoughts on this "continuation" approach?
I love the pattern! Maybe we'll need also some ability to not capture
the state for events which don't have any?
I wonder if that implies we'll need two different event contracts: one
for the
Any thoughts on this "continuation" approach?
Or maybe its just not important (yet) to handle "surround" handling?
On Wed, May 27, 2020 at 9:27 AM Steve Ebersole wrote:
> Inline...
>
> On Wed, May 27, 2020 at 8:10 AM Sanne Grinovero
> wrote:
>
>> At high level I agree, just have 3 more
