Hey Marc,
thanks for taking your time for replying! And even if you do display a certain
abrasiveness while we're at it, and I do not see a few things your way, I
really do learn alot by our exchange. That is greatly appreciated. Thank you.
On Monday 20 April 2015 00:21:19 Marc Lehmann wrote:
>
On Sun, Apr 19, 2015 at 07:29:29PM +0200, Thilo Schulz wrote:
> But ev_prepare watchers are, like you said, a special case, different
> from ev_check watchers, since ev_prepare do not queue with other watchers.
ev_prepare watchers do queue with other watchers - event handling is the
same for ever
Hi,
On Sunday 19 April 2015 12:31:22 Marc Lehmann wrote:
> They are being sorted by priority, just like any other event, which is the
> primary reason to do it this way: Not specialcasing them, but treating
> them the same.
Yep, I can see that is a good reason for ev_check watchers.
But ev_prepar
On Sat, Apr 18, 2015 at 02:17:01PM +0200, Thilo Schulz wrote:
> For both, ev_check and ev_prepare watchers, you're feeding them into the
> pending queue just like the other events, instead of, for instance, sorting
> them by priority in a linked list and then executing them.
They are being sorted
