On Thu, 2008-08-07 at 20:28 +0200, Dirk Meyer wrote: > OK, that is ugly. Besides the fact that I never liked the wait(), > maybe we can add Signals support to coroutine itself. If a functions > yields a Signal we wrap it.
wait() is useful in certain situations. I like it, so there we disagree. It's a simple API. > On the downside you can never "return" a Signal from a coroutine. Yes, and I'm not sure I want to add more special cases to coroutine return values. Did you object to Signal.inprogress()? ------------------------------------------------------------------------- This SF.Net email is sponsored by the Moblin Your Move Developer's challenge Build the coolest Linux based applications with Moblin SDK & win great prizes Grand prize is a trip for two to an Open Source event anywhere in the world http://moblin-contest.org/redirect.php?banner_id=100&url=/ _______________________________________________ Freevo-devel mailing list Freevo-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freevo-devel
