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
