Ichthyostega
0d2d8c3413
The Activity-Language can be defined by abstracting away some crucial implementation functionality as part of an generic »ExecutionCtx«, which in the end will be provided by the Scheduler. But how actually? We want to avoid unnecessary indirections, and ideally we also want a concise formulation in-code. Here I'm exploring the idea to let the scheduler itself provide the ExecutionCtx-operations as member functions, employing some kind of "compile-time duck-typing" This seems to work, but breaks the poor-man's preliminary "Concept" check... |
||
|---|---|---|
| .. | ||
| activity-detector-test.cpp | ||
| activity-detector.hpp | ||
| block-flow-test.cpp | ||
| scheduler-activity-test.cpp | ||
| scheduler-commutator-test.cpp | ||
| scheduler-invocation-test.cpp | ||
| scheduler-service-test.cpp | ||
| scheduler-stress-test.cpp | ||
| scheduler-usage-test.cpp | ||
| work-force-test.cpp | ||