Relax the circuit name?
Closed this issue · 3 comments
benoitc commented
Right now the spec only expect an atom. What about relaxing it to accept any term? The implementation itself doesn't seem to rely on it but I may be wrong
jlouis commented
Shooting quickly from the hip: this sounds like a sensible relaxation
indeed! I'll have to think a bit about it, but I don't see why not.
…On Wed, Jul 5, 2017 at 8:38 PM Benoit Chesneau ***@***.***> wrote:
Right now the spec only expect an atom. What about relaxing it to accept
any term? The implementation itself doesn't seem to rely on it but I may be
wrong
—
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub
<#31>, or mute the thread
<https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AAAWH5ns5uoYQBDREpiwPsORLfA4BsiSks5sK9glgaJpZM4OOtlK>
.
deadtrickster commented
bump. Probably comparing atoms is the quickest? Anyway, now I have to dynamically generate names (for different connection pools), happily generating atoms.