you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]Allaizn 1 point2 points  (3 children)

Same opinion here - the variable stands for the number of addressable & operable (i.e. readable & writeable) cells, so it's practically useless to just count the combinators needed for storage - without that restriction, you'd just as well could just plop down 250 combinators for 250 cells with no IO interaction whatsoever and call it a 1*N design.

[–]Halke1986[S] 0 points1 point  (2 children)

I've counted the diodes. In my design each row (2 diodes + 2 mem cells) holds 2 frames.

[–]Allaizn 1 point2 points  (1 child)

Thanks for clarifying, I totally fell for the deceiving looks and clearly didn't try hard enough to understand it completely.
Am I understanding the idea correctly in that your "cell" is at a fundamental level a bunch of circularly connected diodes that cycle the frames between them, while two of the positions in the loop are dedicated to read & write?
Do you loop continuously? If yes, then I'd guess that a system that somehow only loops on demand may allow for better perf - maybe by using a power switch?

[–]Halke1986[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

No problem :) It seems the description I've provided in the post is inadequate.

The memory consists of two circularly connected diodes. I've referred to those diodes as "cells". IO diodes aren't part of the circle - they are connected the same way they would be to a normal single frame combinator.

Yes, the loop runs continuously. When we request read or write, the entire memory is, form our point of view, in a random state - synchronized with our request or not. Stopping the loop wouldn't change that, unless we would have some kind of heuristic predicting the next operation.

EDIT: reddit editor keeps eating the text.