Re: Timers (was Threads and Progress Monitors)

2003-05-31 Thread Dave Whipp
"Dulcimer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > I find C too terse, and would > rather see a more verbose version I'm obviously more lazy than you ;-). > Ah. Ok, but if that's the case, you could as easily write it > >timeout(5) { coro { ... } }; > > and have the com

Re: Timers (was Threads and Progress Monitors)

2003-05-31 Thread Dulcimer
--- Dave Whipp <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > "Dulcimer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote > > > But exposing the object like that still bothers be: I shouldn't > > > need the $tmp, nor the .new. > > > > I'm not so sure I agree with losing the new(). I kinda like that > > just for readability. Less isn't al

Re: Timers (was Threads and Progress Monitors)

2003-05-31 Thread Dave Whipp
"Dulcimer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote > > But exposing the object like that still bothers be: I shouldn't need > > the $tmp, nor the .new. > > I'm not so sure I agree with losing the new(). I kinda like that just > for readability. Less isn't always more. :) > > Ok, how about this: > > sub slow_fn

Re: Timers (was Threads and Progress Monitors)

2003-05-31 Thread Dulcimer
> > sub slow_fn { > > my $pause = 1; > > my $timer is last { .stop } = new Timer secs => $pause++, > >reset => {$pause++}, > > code => {print "."}; > > return slow_fn_imp @_; > > } > > I'm think