[En-Nut-Discussion] NutEventWait - Suggested Change

[Austin Schutz]

On Fri, Jan 14, 2005 at 05:16:18PM +0100, Harald Kipp wrote:
> Ralph,
> 
> This will indeed break almost all existing code.
> Anyway, we may consider it for the upcoming 4.0
> to get rid of this inconsistency. But I'd like
> to hear more opinions first.
> 

	Definitely sounds like a more reasonable interface - but you
could create a new call that references the old one rather than replacing
the old one. That would maintain backwards compatibility with existing
code.

	Austin
> 
> 
> At 09:00 14.01.2005 +1300, you wrote:
> >This is probably contentious since it would break lots of existing code.
> >
> >At the moment Calling NutEventWait with a timeout of 0 makes it wait 
> >forever.  I think this is wrong, calling it with a timeout of zero should 
> >return the signaled state of the event or return immediately with -1 
> >(perhaps with a Yield)
> >
> >A define of  INFINITE should be make with a value of -1 to do the Job that 
> >0 does at the moment.
> >
> >This means you could do non blocking reads on sockets and devices etc and 
> >make it cleaner (IMHO).
> >
> >
> >Ralph.
> 
> _______________________________________________
> En-Nut-Discussion mailing list
> En-Nut-Discussion at egnite.de
> http://www.egnite.de/mailman/listinfo.cgi/en-nut-discussion