precedence_matrix with performance views about processmapr

[gertjanssenswillen]

I think it is a great idea to use the same syntax as for process map, both from development as from a user perspective. Once the process_map function has been refactored (see also #40), I'll take a look at this.

I'll just have to take into account back-ward compatibility. One option will be to keep the precedence matrix as-is (at least for now), and create a new function in the generic way. I'll keep you updated.

[frkbr]

👍

…

On Thu, Dec 13, 2018 at 1:19 PM Gert Janssenswillen < ***@***.***> wrote: I think it is a great idea to use the same syntax as for process map, both from development as from a user perspective. Once the process_map function has been refactored (see also #40 <#40>), I'll take a look at this. I'll just have to take into account back-ward compatibility. One option will be to keep the precedence matrix as-is (at least for now), and create a new function in the generic way. I'll keep you updated. — You are receiving this because you authored the thread. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub <#39 (comment)>, or mute the thread <https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AY3TopoPJYfzxqSOkylAqviClbKGG98Vks5u4kXIgaJpZM4ZMxKv> .

[gertjanssenswillen]

github now contains a function process_matrix (next to precedence matrix). Process matrix accepts the same frequency() and performance() configurations as process_map.

Further testing still needed, and also performance of the new function is low because it uses the process map code which should be improved

[frkbr]

Thanks for the new function!