On Wednesday, Dec 4, 2002, at 06:30 US/Pacific, Michael Melhem wrote:
On Wed, Dec 04, 2002 at 02:56:50PM +0100, Sylvain Wallez wrote:
Michael Melhem wrote:
On Wed, Dec 04, 2002 at 02:19:33PM +0100, Sylvain Wallez wrote:
Marcus Crafter wrote:
Just some thoughts (sorry if this already has been discussed, I may
have
missed it) : why not keeping the "sendPageAndContinue" ?
sendPageAndContinue is precisely the problem, many people were
confusing "Continue" with continuations!
Ah, ok, I understand... but I'm still uncomfortable with having a
precise "sendPageAndWait" and an imprecise "sendPage", as inconsistent
naming always leads to confusion.
Yes I know what you mean. hmmm...
I agree, I was thinking about exactly this last night.
So, last try : what about "sendPageAndReturn" ?
This name was already suggested, but Ovidiu had some objection to
"Return". ???
People usually associate "return" with returning from the current
function. I'm still looking for a better name to mean the function
sends the response page, but continues the processing of the script
without creating a continuation and stopping. I personally still prefer
the sendPageAndContinue, now that we have sendPageAndWait it should be
clear the meaning of "Continue".
BTW, are you coming to the Stammtisch too? ;)
I don't know about Sylvain, but I'm still thinking about it ;)
Ovidiu
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
