Re: [Vala] Implicit lamdas/closures

["Sam Liddicott" <sam liddicott com>]

It'll be a couple of weeks at least before I can look at it.

Jürg, are you intending to allow the callbacks to pass in additional variables?

Are you planning to base it around any particular async framework?

Will callbacks be able to continue a loop where it left off?

Sam

-----Original Message-----
From: JürgBilleter <j bitron ch>
Sent: 01 November 2008 08:27
To: Michael 'Mickey' Lauer <mickey vanille-media de>
Cc: vala-list gnome org
Subject: Re: [Vala] Implicit lamdas/closures

On Wed, 2008-09-17 at 16:22 +0200, Michael 'Mickey' Lauer wrote:
> Am Wednesday 17 September 2008 00:34:08 schrieb Jürg Billeter:
> > I like the idea of adding language support for asynchronous method
> > calls, I was thinking of implementing this for some months but it wasn't
> > on the top of my todo list.
> >
> > I haven't tried implementing this, but I think that the Vala code could
> > be made even simpler and the labels should not be necessary. My idea is
> > to introduce a modifier/attribute to mark methods as async capable. If
> > you call an async method using the `yield' keyword, it will
> > automatically introduce a continuation point there, i.e., add a callback
> > and return in C. The async method call will not accept any delegate or
> > lambda, it will just implicitly use the rest of the method body.
>
> That sounds amazing. Could we use this to have the missing support for async. 
> dbus server support or is that only useful for the client?

Yes, async D-Bus server support will be built on top of this scheme. I'm
planning to start working on this soon.

Jürg

_______________________________________________
Vala-list mailing list
Vala-list gnome org
http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/vala-list