Micha Nelissen wrote:
Vinzent Höfler wrote:
Currently all I see is a subtle semantic difference between Windows- and
Unix-Event's implementation.
AFAICS, it's as close as it can get. You mean subtle as in, unimportant,
or as in, possibly fatal ? :-) If possibly fatal, describe when/how.
If used incorrectly, i.e. asynchronously.
So for now all I can say is that this should either
a) be documented,
*Could* be a good idea, yes ;-).
b) changed to a common semantic behaviour, or
They're both more or less 'transient' now.
Depends on the view point. Doing two consecutive waits() might do very
different things. :)
So I'd say, the behaviour and intended use should definitely be documented.
I am not sure how to emulate windows behavior on unix, although that
behavior is easier to use I think, so would be desirable.
You'd have to create an own abstraction about the useful primitives.
That's what I was initially talking about. :) Dunno, if that's good for
the RTL, because you'd probably loose /some/ speed on the way...
Vinzent.
_______________________________________________
fpc-pascal maillist - fpc-pascal@lists.freepascal.org
http://lists.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/fpc-pascal
