Re: [AD] WIP 4.1.15 and CVS freeze

[Evert Glebbeek <eglebbk@xxxxxxxxxx>]

On Friday 23 July 2004 15:06, Elias Pschernig wrote:
> Since we agreed that there will be another function with higher
> precision which can be used to do more exact waiting, and "rest" will be
> there to have a way to give up CPU, the rest(0) behavior and
> yield_timeslice deprecation is settled I guess.

I'm not sure I like the logic of rest(0) == yield_timeslice.
If I'd want to yield the remainder of the current timeslice, I'd rather 
call a function called yield_timeslice() than a function called rest() 
with argument 0... just personal preference though.

> Changing rest(long) to rest(unsigned long) makes a lot of sense in my
> opinion, and will not break old programs (negative numbers never were
> allowed), so I'm tending to just apply it, and then work on updating the
> GUI to use rest instead of yield_timeslice.

There's no d_rest_proc, is there? In that case, will you changethe behavior 
of d_yield_proc(), or depricate that too and add a new function to rest 
for a specified amount of time?

Evert