On Wed, Jan 16, 2008 at 05:20:06PM -0200, Leandro Lucarella <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> > (like watchers? but since they are radically different methods, maybe the
> > must be called otherwise). Maybe just loop -> do_loop?
>
> Even more, if we call it loop, then we can't name the internal base
>
Marc Lehmann, el 17 de enero a las 08:57 me escribiste:
> On Wed, Jan 16, 2008 at 04:12:02PM -0200, Leandro Lucarella <[EMAIL
> PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Marc Lehmann, el 16 de enero a las 05:43 me escribiste:
> > I'm trying to go back to this design, but I'm starting to need the loop to
> > be virtu
Marc Lehmann, el 16 de enero a las 05:43 me escribiste:
> Not if you are convinced its what people predominantly want. I have as
> much data on that as you (i.e. mostly my own: I have more READ than write
> watchers, but I don't see why it should be the default. Think readability:
>
>start (fd
Well, after all the talking and thinking, this is what I came up with.
Main changes:
* The use of exceptions is now optional (configurable via
EV_CXX_EXCEPTIONS). I don't know if:
#define throw(exception) throw (exception)
is valid preprocesor code though =)
It could be easily changed to E
Leandro Lucarella, el 17 de enero a las 17:08 me escribiste:
> Patch and example attached. Documentation still missing (I'll do that when
> the patch gets a technical OK =). I'll probably split the patch in
> smaller, incremental changes.
I think not many people undestand the invisible diff format
On Thu, Jan 17, 2008 at 05:08:16PM -0200, Leandro Lucarella <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> Well, after all the talking and thinking, this is what I came up with.
>
> Main changes:
> * The use of exceptions is now optional (configurable via
> EV_CXX_EXCEPTIONS). I don't know if:
> #define throw(
On Wed, Jan 16, 2008 at 03:37:12PM -0200, Leandro Lucarella <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> > Well, I think its a wonderful idea, its a loop, it should be called loop :)
>
> If we call it loop, then the loop() method has to be called other way,
> that's why I didn't call it loop. Maybe loop -> start
On Thu, Jan 17, 2008 at 10:28:16AM -0200, Leandro Lucarella <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> > Bause I don't: I changed ->stat to ->update already and it sucks. The
> > obvious method would be to call them ev_sleep etc. (haha).
>
> do_/get_xxx? do_fork, do_sleep, get_time?
>
> fix_fork? go_sleep? no
