On Thu, Aug 09, 2001 at 03:10:16PM +0000, Mikhael Goikhman wrote: > On 08 Aug 2001 21:29:50 +0200, Dominik Vogt wrote: > > > > On Wed, Aug 08, 2001 at 08:14:01PM +0700, Dmitry Yu. Bolkhovityanov wrote: > > > On Wed, 8 Aug 2001, Dominik Vogt wrote: > > > > > > > Is it really necessary to pass function return codes through > > > > global variables? If we do this now we will regret it some day. > > > > > > That's just a logical consequence of current CMD_fff calling > > > convention. I really investigated if globals can be avoided, but there is > > > *no* per-call structure to hold the return value. > > > > That's why I wanted avoid function return codes. Every "return" > > in each "CMD_..." function would have to be touched. > > > > > And yes, there is an obvious case when this solution would break > > > -- if someday fvwm will allow concurrent execution of functions (AFAIK, > > > currently it does so in an "interrupt" fashion, so that saving/restoring > > > the state in execute_complex_function() is enough). > > > > What do you mean with "if someday"? Fvwm already supports > > asynchronous execution, e.g. when modules send commands. > > I think Dimitry meant asynchronous execution of _complex_ functions. > I myself often call "complex functions" simply functions as opposed to > "functions" that are commands.
Well, of course he meant complex functions. But e.g. FvwmIconMan already supports it's own implementation of complex functions by sending commands successively over the module pipe. Bye Dominik ^_^ ^_^ -- Dominik Vogt, [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- Visit the official FVWM web page at <URL:http://www.fvwm.org/>. To unsubscribe from the list, send "unsubscribe fvwm-workers" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] To report problems, send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
