IMHO it is not good to re-join "later" a loop in which there were timers or pending TCP connections. Define "later".
-- Iñaki Baz Castillo <[email protected]> On Aug 1, 2014 3:54 PM, "Saúl Ibarra Corretgé" <[email protected]> wrote: > On 08/01/2014 03:02 PM, Iñaki Baz Castillo wrote: > > 2014-08-01 14:24 GMT+02:00 Saúl Ibarra Corretgé <[email protected]>: > >> The scenario is that you want to notify the user about the process going > >> away and give him one last chance. IIRC he can prevent the loop from > >> exiting by creating new handles in this event. But all that is beyond > >> the point. Bottom line is: not all applications are like yours, other > >> people have different needs, and there is no One True Design To Rule > >> Them All (TM). > > > > Sure. I just say that any design in which the loop is exited without > > releasing its resources (handles and so on) is a Bad Design (TM). > > > > > Nobody said that is a good thing. You can exit the loop early and > continue to run it later on without any problem. > > -- > Saúl Ibarra Corretgé > bettercallsaghul.com > > > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "libuv" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/libuv. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
