Matthieu MOY <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > 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.
Sure, I don't disagree. Actually, the reason I kept a single function called `tla-run-arch' was just to have something resembling backwards-compatibility, but if we're going to break things we might as well do it properly :o) I'm happy to go with just having two separate functions if you are. Cheers, Mark -- Mark Triggs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
