Re: [Vala] Thoughts on asynchronous methods

["Michael 'Mickey' Lauer" <mickey vanille-media de>]

On Saturday 12 September 2009 13:34:27 Jürg Billeter wrote:
> I agree with you here. The reason I've chosen `yields' is that I've
> initially thought that the same syntax could be used for more generic
> coroutine support. However, the focus was always on asynchronous methods
> and there is no plan to integrate generic coroutine with the same syntax
> anymore.

That's kind of sad. What is the plan towards generic coroutines then, if any?

> As async support is still considered experimental, I think it makes
> sense to change the keyword now. I don't know whether we should use
> `async' or rather the unabbreviated `asynchronous' to be clear, although
> it's quite long. Any opinions?

'async' should do.

> This is an interesting idea. However, I hope you understand that it
> doesn't make sense to me to closely look into things like that until
> basic async support is working well - and Vala 1.0 has been released.

Missing async dbus on server side is a showstopper for us here, is there a 
away I could fake/wrap that in the meantime until it's there?

Thanks,

:M: