home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Newsgroups: comp.sys.acorn.tech
- Path: sparky!uunet!europa.eng.gtefsd.com!paladin.american.edu!news.univie.ac.at!scsing.switch.ch!dxcern!dscomsa!vxdesy.desy.de!burke
- From: burke@vxdesy.desy.de (Stephen Burke)
- Subject: Re: RISCOS_lib and alternatives
- Message-ID: <1993Jan28.184537.1@vxdesy.desy.de>
- Lines: 20
- Sender: usenet@dscomsa.desy.de (usenet)
- Organization: (DESY, Hamburg, Germany)
- References: <6717@falcon.ukc.ac.uk> <KERS.93Jan28131720@cdollin.hpl.hp.com>
- Date: Thu, 28 Jan 1993 18:45:37 GMT
-
- In article <KERS.93Jan28131720@cdollin.hpl.hp.com>, kers@hplb.hpl.hp.com (Chris Dollin) writes:
- > It's much easier to have but the one loop, and (if *necessary*) cut
- > off some of the functionality while your oh-so-special box is up
- > there. I agree that RISCOSLib can get in the way, but that's not a
- > property of being the single polling loop; it's a property of being
- > not terribly well designed. IMAO.
-
- I think it depends on the problem. With a single polling loop you have to
- have state flags for every possible state your program might be in. If some
- of these states are very different from the "normal" state then it may make
- sense to have separate polling loops for these. I don't think it's too
- difficult to make sure that all the standard things are still taken care
- of.
-
- e----><----p | Stephen Burke | Internet: burke@vxdesy.desy.de
- H H 1 | Gruppe FH1T (Liverpool) | DECnet: vxdesy::burke (13313::burke)
- H H 11 | DESY, Notkestrasse 85 | BITNET: BURKE@DESYVAX or SB2@UKACRL
- HHHHH 1 | 2000 Hamburg 52 | JANET: sb2@uk.ac.rl.ib
- H H 1 | Germany | Phone: + 49 40 8998 2282
- H H 11111 | HERA, the world's largest electron microscope!
-