exposing activecnt

[Marc Lehmann]

On Wed, Nov 24, 2010 at 03:58:02PM +0100, Alejandro Mery <amery at geeks.cl> wrote:
> > that.  He can recall ev_run, but does ev have a way of telling you
> > whether it's returned immediately because there are no watchers?
> 
> it smells like a return value for ev_run(), no?

ev_loop returning e.g. the break value (or EVBREAK_CANCEL which could have an
EVBREAK_NONE alias) sounds like a much more acceptable solution to me.

I still haven't seen a reason why this is needed though, or even
convenient - all cases ehere I have seen ev_break being an issue already
need to maintain an extra flag anyway.

It still could be wrong, but I don't want to expose internals more than
necessary, so that menas that either I need to understand why it's needed or
I need to understand why it's just so convenient.

Changing ev_run also is an ABI change (and will break the perl interface,
but fortunately not most C users).

-- 
                The choice of a       Deliantra, the free code+content MORPG
      -----==-     _GNU_              http://www.deliantra.net
      ----==-- _       generation
      ---==---(_)__  __ ____  __      Marc Lehmann
      --==---/ / _ \/ // /\ \/ /      schmorp at schmorp.de
      -=====/_/_//_/\_,_/ /_/\_\