Relax the circuit name?

[benoitc]

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]

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]

bump. Probably comparing atoms is the quickest? Anyway, now I have to dynamically generate names (for different connection pools), happily generating atoms.

[jlouis]

Better late than never!

This restriction has been lifted via a63f068