On Fri, Jan 18, 2008 at 05:09:15PM -0200, Leandro Lucarella <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> About this. What about exposing the default loop functions in the ev
> namespace?
thats probably not a bad idea, as it underscores that the default loop is not
an objetc to be instantiated by user code.
to me, ev::init doesn't give me the default loop or intziailises, it simply
ensures that the default loop is there.
and ev::destroy is more a "really, destroy it even if everybody else hates
it, because for some obscure reason we should not have a default loop" (i
cannot imagine such situation, really, I am open for examples).
> ev::init (flags) -> ev_default_loop (flags)
ev::default_loop or default_init (not that important)
> ev::get () -> ev_default_loop (0)
maybe ev::default_loop () as well?
> ev::destroy () -> ev_default_destroy ()
I think this really should be ev::default_destroy, its too non-obvious
otherwise.
> ev::count () -> ev_count (ev_default_loop (0))
> ev::backend () -> ev_backend (ev_default_loop (0))
>
> I'll keep the default loop struct wrapper too, because in a multi loop
> environment let you use a callback for a default or a dynamic loop
> indisticly, like:
How about nuking th default_loop wrapper and instead returnign a loop_ref of
the default loop instead?
Then the interface would be the same:
ev::default_loop ().loop ()
ev::default_loop ().post_fork ();
etc. I think default_loop should preferably a variable (this has many
problems! don't! :)
that is, have functions only for the most common uses (such as loop) and
stuff you can't have in a loop_ref (create/destroy), but keep everythign else
in the loop_ref.
> void cb (watcher &w, int revents)
> {
> w.loop.unloop (); // I don't care if is the default or not.
> }
That should definitely work, yes.
> So you can reuse callbacks. You can also use automatic destruction for the
> default loop:
automatic destruction for the default loop makes what sense? I'd really
like to know. In about 100% of the cases its a big waste of time and
resources.
> What do you think?
Its a good idea that I would like to slightly modify, if possible :)
> PS: The "big" problem comes with ev::now () =P
hhehe, my proposal fixes thta, as it would be:
ev::default_loop ().now ()
i think users should store the default_loop in soem variable as soon
as possible anyways (and most people will liekly do just to avoid the
function call).
--
The choice of a Deliantra, the free code+content MORPG
-----==- _GNU_ http://www.deliantra.net
----==-- _ generation
---==---(_)__ __ ____ __ Marc Lehmann
--==---/ / _ \/ // /\ \/ / [EMAIL PROTECTED]
-=====/_/_//_/\_,_/ /_/\_\
_______________________________________________
libev mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.schmorp.de/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/libev
