On Tue, Nov 10, 2009 at 10:17 AM, Anne van Kesteren <[email protected]> wrote: > On Tue, 10 Nov 2009 18:41:32 +0100, Jonas Sicking <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> On Tue, Nov 10, 2009 at 9:29 AM, Anne van Kesteren <[email protected]> >> wrote: >>> >>> abort() has some legacy attached to it that I rather not copy. >> >> Such as? > > Actually, apart from switching the state to 0 in the end there is nothing. > (This does not happen for user aborts though so I still rather not copy > that.) > > Anyway, do you have opinions on the synchronous case? Do you agree we should > use TIMEOUT_ERR there? What do the people from Microsoft think?
That makes sense to me. / Jonas
