On Wed, Aug 8, 2012 at 3:24 PM, Nick Mathewson <[email protected]> wrote: > On Mon, Aug 6, 2012 at 5:31 PM, Diwaker Gupta <[email protected]> wrote: > I don't believe that we defined whether setting the timeout to NULL > will cancel any currently pending timeouts. That is, if the timeout > has already fired, and the corresponding event is active, I don't know > that we've defined whether setting the timeout to NULL will cancel the > callback or not.
My experience is that setting the timeout to NULL doesn't disable the timeout, period. Not only do any pending timeouts fire, but they persist. > It might be reasonable to define this, and define the answer to "yes" > -- it's a reasonable thing to want. I, for one, am strongly in favor of this. The documentation simply says "NULL disables the timeout" and IMO this is a very reasonable interpretation. Diwaker > yrs, > -- > Nick > *********************************************************************** > To unsubscribe, send an e-mail to [email protected] with > unsubscribe libevent-users in the body. -- http://maginatics.com *********************************************************************** To unsubscribe, send an e-mail to [email protected] with unsubscribe libevent-users in the body.
