On 4/18/18, Andrew Robinson <arobinso...@cox.net> wrote: > IUP should not be the solution to every problem. It would be like > incorporating a cross-platform C-runtime into IUP when that is the wrong > approach. IUP is great as it is and for specialized problems it will never > be > able to beat a mature third party app, and right now my favorite app for the > kinds of issues you are discussing is ØMQ (http://zeromq.org), but I'm sure > there are other apps out there that will do just fine. > > Best Regards, > Andrew
I agree that IUP should not be the solution to every problem. But in this case, I strongly argue that it is the correct solution because IUP itself already took over responsibility for the event loop. (The moment IupMainLoop() or IupLoopStep() were created, that ship sailed.) IUP wrapped native GUIs and by that fact, it also is responsbile for dealing with the platform idiosyncrasies they demand for their event loops (in this case, multithreading rules). This proposal is a tiny patch to IUP, one that nobody except the implementors will notice. It does not break current behavior or create any trade offs. But it solves real problems deal with the fact that the real world uses threads, even inside the native platforms. If you don't have this problem, then it doesn't matter because this change won't affect you. Thanks, Eric ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most engaging tech sites, Slashdot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot _______________________________________________ Iup-users mailing list Iup-users@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/iup-users
