Roy T. Fielding wrote: > > So, I'm -0.9 on the patch, even though it isn't much worse than > the existing code. I'd be -1 if I could be sure what it did.
And I wouldn't debate it... back to the drawing board. As an improvement to the behavior I support it, in terms of style it got a -0.5 from me, but I didn't have the cycles to clean it up. Thanks for the kick in the ass to do so. It's time for the less-than-half-assed solution to WaitForMultipleObjects. Bill
