Quoting Mark Triggs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > Currently my tla-run-arch is just defined as: > > (defun tla-run-arch (arglist run-asynchron &rest keys) > (message "tla-run-arch: %S" arglist) > (if run-asynchron > (apply 'tla-run-asynchronously "tla" arglist keys) > (apply 'tla-run-synchronously "tla" arglist keys))) > > So it's really just a wrapper around those two functions. They're > implemented quite differently, but they behave fairly similarly (they > both take :finish, :error and :killed arguments, for instance). Is > this the sort of thing you mean, or would it be better to have the > caller choose which function they want?
Yes, but then, you can just remove tla-run-arch, and let the user call tla-run-asynchronously or tla-run-synchronously directly. Keeping the same interface has the advantage that changing the synchronousness of a process is easier (Just a 'a' to add or remove), but it doesn't seem to be mandatory to me. -- Matthieu ------------------------------------------------- envoyé via Webmail/IMAG !
