you can also use refcount_increment() - which is more work, but at least you
get to decide whether watching for a signal keeps you alive
On 19 Sep 2006 08:18:59 -0700, Randal L. Schwartz
wrote:
> "Rocco" == Rocco Caputo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Rocco> + The sig() reference count has be
Hey, Nick. Discontent is the father of invention.
Revision 2098 works around test failures when POE::Wheel::ReadLine's
DESTROY calls $poe_kernel->select() and state() outside the proper
session context. Certain asserts turn this behavior into hard, fatal
errors, and POE's tests usually ru
Randal L. Schwartz wrote:
"Rocco" == Rocco Caputo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Rocco> + The sig() reference count has been removed. There will be much
rejoicing,
Rocco> and probably some gnashing of teeth.
I've not been following. Is this an even-numbered week or an odd number
> "Rocco" == Rocco Caputo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Rocco> + The sig() reference count has been removed. There will be much
rejoicing,
Rocco> and probably some gnashing of teeth.
I've not been following. Is this an even-numbered week or an odd numbered
week? As in, if a session is wait
I now have a new problem (don't I always ;-).
ReadLine has a modification that I didn't spot earlier (due to our
inability to use the last few releases) that doesn't make sense to me.
The change labelled r2098 (which went into 0.37, I believe) does this:
2006-09-05 01:41:11 (r2098) by rcaput
You have a few hours to perhaps a day or two to prepare yourself for
the onslaught of goodness encapsulated in this release. Perhaps most
significantly, the two changes you've been waiting for all week (if
not longer):
+ The sig() reference count has been removed. There will be much
rej