On Saturday, 11 July 2015 at 02:15:02 UTC, ketmar wrote:
so simply don't receive the messages you don't need right now.
as i said, `receive()` doesn't look to top message only, it
scans the whole mailbox, trying to find a message that matches.
you can use `receiveTimeout()` to do nothing if t
On Fri, 10 Jul 2015 19:39:24 +, E.S. Quinn wrote:
> the documentation i can find for std.concurrency mentions what happens
> when one receive() call gets a message it doesn't understand.
that `receive()` will not get such a message. `receive()` scans the whole
mailbox to find the message it
On Sat, 11 Jul 2015 01:52:23 +, E.S. Quinn wrote:
> On Friday, 10 July 2015 at 23:39:30 UTC, ketmar wrote:
>> this way your `receive` will get all messages. simply do nothing in
>> `Variant` handler to drop messages you don't want to process.
>>
>>
>> [1] http://dlang.org/phobos/std_concurrenc
On Friday, 10 July 2015 at 23:39:30 UTC, ketmar wrote:
this way your `receive` will get all messages. simply do
nothing in `Variant` handler to drop messages you don't want to
process.
[1] http://dlang.org/phobos/std_concurrency.html#.receive
The thing is, I want to do receive() in two sepa
I'm putting together a program that uses std.concurrency to
handle two child threads from the main thread;
The kicker here is that both the children do very different
things. And I would like to handle receive() calls for them in
separate locations. But from what I can tell, each thread has
o
