> I'll try to write up our understanding of the state of this issue sometime in the next day. Including "finite time pulse reject". Thanks, that will be useful. I've been thinking some more about these explicit flushes, and I do like the idea of providing some controllability for advanced users. As we saw in the discussion, various pathological cases can get unintuitive results with the flush-on-* rules. What do you guys think of the idea I mentioned in passing, that we might make automatic flushing the default, but provide an explicit flush function that also disables future auto-flushing in the process? -- This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by MailScanner, and is believed to be clean.Received on Thu Oct 18 07:13:24 2007
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Thu Oct 18 2007 - 07:13:34 PDT