On Saturday 12 September 2009 13:34:27 Jürg Billeter wrote: > I agree with you here. The reason I've chosen `yields' is that I've > initially thought that the same syntax could be used for more generic > coroutine support. However, the focus was always on asynchronous methods > and there is no plan to integrate generic coroutine with the same syntax > anymore.
That's kind of sad. What is the plan towards generic coroutines then, if any? > As async support is still considered experimental, I think it makes > sense to change the keyword now. I don't know whether we should use > `async' or rather the unabbreviated `asynchronous' to be clear, although > it's quite long. Any opinions? 'async' should do. > This is an interesting idea. However, I hope you understand that it > doesn't make sense to me to closely look into things like that until > basic async support is working well - and Vala 1.0 has been released. Missing async dbus on server side is a showstopper for us here, is there a away I could fake/wrap that in the meantime until it's there? Thanks, :M: _______________________________________________ Vala-list mailing list [email protected] http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/vala-list
