On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 12:34 AM, Marc Lehmann <schm...@schmorp.de> wrote:
> As for 0, we indeed don't need to care, but introducing this special case > would make the timeout values nonproportional to the actual time. And that > in turn would destroy the property that adding something to a timeout > value will make the timer fire this much earlier or later (within the > limits of libev's control). > > I think having time run strictly monotonously is more important than the > special case of a 0-second timer - a 0 second timer is definitely NOT a > special case for the user of libev. > > Right. I agree this property shouldn't become broken. > > It is possible to use ev_timer(-1) but that's not as clear as > ev_timer(0). > > Why would anybody want to use specifically a 0-second timer (where the 0 > isn't just the chance result of some calculation)? > > The only reason I can know from past experience is that some people try > to abuse 0-second timers as some replacement for idle watchers, possibly > because that hack was the only way to get some kind of idle behaviour with > some other event loop. > Well, in gevent, people sometimes use sleep(0) as a way to yield to other current coroutines. However, I can also handle 0 separately in sleep(), make it use ev_idle or ev_check in that case.
_______________________________________________ libev mailing list libev@lists.schmorp.de http://lists.schmorp.de/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/libev
