On Thu, 2009-08-13 at 09:16 -0700, Nick Mathewson wrote: > On Wed, Aug 12, 2009 at 11:42:47AM -0700, Ka-Hing Cheung wrote: > [...] > > I do realize that this breaks existing assumptions about return values. > > What if instead of using a different return value, we don't reset > > base->event_gotterm and base->event_break when triggered? We can reset > > them at the beginning of event_base_loop() instead. > > How would you inspect them? The event_base structure isn't exposed in > any public headers. I suppose we could add a new accessor function.
Right. > I like the idea of the original patch, but I'm also concerned about > return values. If anyone has written code like > "if (event_base_loop(base,0)<0)" or "if (event_base_loop(base,0)==-1)", > they'll get unexpected results. Yes I like that too. I don't know how strict the api compatibility requirement is, but I am willing to submit another patch (the one with accessor to base->event_gotterm/event_break) if you think that's the better way to do it. -khc _______________________________________________ Libevent-users mailing list Libevent-users@monkey.org http://monkeymail.org/mailman/listinfo/libevent-users
