On Wed, Jan 16, 2008 at 05:20:06PM -0200, Leandro Lucarella <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > (like watchers? but since they are radically different methods, maybe the > > must be called otherwise). Maybe just loop -> do_loop? > > Even more, if we call it loop, then we can't name the internal base > watcher variable "loop" either :S
Yeah.. of course.. but... ev::loop might be worse than ev::loop_ref (or maybe not, not sure). I would expect programs to use ev::loop_dynamic sometimes, ev::loop_default more often and accessing the loop itself by name very rarely, i.e. // expected: watcher.loop->unloop (); // unexpected ev::loop_something l = watcher.loop; l.unloop (); The othe rhting is that most people do not really copy references around, it makes little sense (there is no value semantics), so a loop * would do fine as well. -- The choice of a Deliantra, the free code+content MORPG -----==- _GNU_ http://www.deliantra.net ----==-- _ generation ---==---(_)__ __ ____ __ Marc Lehmann --==---/ / _ \/ // /\ \/ / [EMAIL PROTECTED] -=====/_/_//_/\_,_/ /_/\_\ _______________________________________________ libev mailing list libev@lists.schmorp.de http://lists.schmorp.de/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/libev