> On Mon, 28 Jul 2003, Gary R. Van Sickle wrote: > > > > Robert Collins wrote: > > > > On Tue, 2003-07-29 at 02:13, Max Bowsher wrote: > > > > > > > >> If we do add a class, it should probably be a thread class > from which all > > > of > > > >> our threaded tasks can derive. Regardless, I don't see that any further > > > >> cleanup will reverse these changes. I can see how it may > involve changing > > > >> the same lines to a third form, but that is not a reversal. > > > > > > > > Are you thinking of the (IIR the name C) the 'completion object' > > > > pattern? That would work too. > > > > > > I have no idea what this means. > > > > It's "Gang Of Four"-speak, though I'm not sure this is actually original > > Gang Of Four, i.e. "Design Patterns: Elements Of Reusable > > Object-Oriented Software" by four guys and a foreward by Grady Booch. > > I don't recall running across it in there. > > I think Rob might have meant the "Asynchronous Completion Token" pattern: > <http://www.cs.wustl.edu/~schmidt/PDF/ACT.pdf> (first Google match). This > is definitely post-GOF.
Seems like a lot of work to go to just to eliminate a global variable. -- Gary R. Van Sickle Brewer. Patriot.
