On Mon, Jan 21, 2008 at 11:30:25AM -0200, Leandro Lucarella <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> > "Want" is the wrong word, but it would enbale us to use struct loop in place
> > of struct loop_ref.
>
> But it will forbids us to use the name loop for the watcher's variable.
Hmm, sounds like dejavu - why? The tag namespace and the member namespace
are distinct.
It might result in ugly code, though, which would be enough of an agrument
to put it off.
> > Oh, you mena, users will have to call ev_default_init themselves? Do you
> > think any user who knows what she is doing will prefer your method over a
> > straightforward declaration of their own default loop pointe r(which saves
> > typing).
> >
> > *That* makes no sense whatsoever :)
>
> I find more natural to do (in C++):
> ev::default_loop->init (flags);
> than:
> ev_default_init (flags);
I don't find anything natural at all at calling as do-called "init" method
in C++, "shouldn't this be done by the constructor?" :)
In any case, I (personally) would prefer:
ev::default_init (flags)
over another nesting in some obscure object.
> And BTW, why ev_default_init () and not ev_default_loop ()?
There is little difference between those names. The reason I chose init
was to emphasize that it might initialise things (you have to initialise
C librraies usually...), while ev_default_loop would have this lingering
taste of "how do i initialise it?".
> I'm a little lost now... :)
There is little difference between the two names. I might choose
differently today, and again differently tomorrow :->
In any case, I leave the final decision on how to implement this up to you :)
--
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
