On Wed, Aug 12, 2020 at 3:17 AM Jason Heeris <jason.hee...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Wednesday, 12 August 2020 at 1:43:16 am UTC+10 Ben Noordhuis wrote: >> >> A uv_idle_t might be marginally more efficient (one fewer system call.) > > > I took the various suggestions here and wrote a few different versions (timer > with 0 delay and repeat, async, idle with idle stop call in callback). It > turned out that the idle call led to nicer code anyway, and I expect for > someone else to read is a little less surprising the alternatives. > > Is this something that might be useful in libuv in general? If I were to come > back to this and open a PR to add such a thing, would it be worth the time, > or unlikely to be generally useful?
"This" meaning "one-shot callback"? It's never been requested before (AFAIR anyway) and it's easy to construct from existing functionality. I'm leaning towards 'no' but I'm willing to be persuaded. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "libuv" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to libuv+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/libuv/CAHQurc8xSWZojoe_LpheGM38B-rRWtcfCaYE7uCeeM6qw_%3D1PQ%40mail.gmail.com.
