Naming
-
Should WaitOne have been named WaitOn?
Gus Gustafson
-
Hmmm, I think the One in the name is referring to the number of objects you are waiting on. The Windows API equivalent would probably be WaitForSingleObject[^].
+5 Good thought.
Gus Gustafson
-
Should WaitOne have been named WaitOn?
Gus Gustafson
Maybe, if "wait one" implies a time limit, but "wait on" does not.
-
+5 Good thought.
Gus Gustafson
-
Should WaitOne have been named WaitOn?
Gus Gustafson
WaitADaGumMinute?
The most expensive tool is a cheap tool. Gareth Branwyn JaxCoder.com
-
Should WaitOne have been named WaitOn?
Gus Gustafson
Nope. WaitOne means you're waiting on a single signal as opposed to WaitAny and WaitAll. The term "WaitOn" could mean "wait on one signal" or "wait on any signal" or "wait on all", all of which are very ambiguous with the adjective "on". When dealing with threads and signaling, being very clear is critical for successful task/thread management.
Latest Article:
Create a Digital Ocean Droplet for .NET Core Web API with a real SSL Certificate on a Domain -
WaitADaGumMinute?
The most expensive tool is a cheap tool. Gareth Branwyn JaxCoder.com
"Wait One" referring to waiting a minute is US dialect / jargon. We should have "WaitOneSecond", "WaitOneMinute", ...
Freedom is the freedom to say that two plus two make four. If that is granted, all else follows. -- 6079 Smith W.
-
Nope. WaitOne means you're waiting on a single signal as opposed to WaitAny and WaitAll. The term "WaitOn" could mean "wait on one signal" or "wait on any signal" or "wait on all", all of which are very ambiguous with the adjective "on". When dealing with threads and signaling, being very clear is critical for successful task/thread management.
Latest Article:
Create a Digital Ocean Droplet for .NET Core Web API with a real SSL Certificate on a Domain -
Hmmm, I think the One in the name is referring to the number of objects you are waiting on. The Windows API equivalent would probably be WaitForSingleObject[^].
I think so too
Paul Sanders. If I had more time, I would have written a shorter letter - Blaise Pascal. Some of my best work is in the undo buffer.
-
dan!sh wrote:
called it BRB
We need a "vomiting" reaction! People using SMS abbreviations in their code should be defenestrated, then hangéd* from the nearest lamppost as a warning to others! :mad: :) * Much worse than a regular hanging!
Freedom is the freedom to say that two plus two make four. If that is granted, all else follows. -- 6079 Smith W.
-
Should WaitOne have been named WaitOn?
Gus Gustafson
-
Nope. WaitOne means you're waiting on a single signal as opposed to WaitAny and WaitAll. The term "WaitOn" could mean "wait on one signal" or "wait on any signal" or "wait on all", all of which are very ambiguous with the adjective "on". When dealing with threads and signaling, being very clear is critical for successful task/thread management.
Latest Article:
Create a Digital Ocean Droplet for .NET Core Web API with a real SSL Certificate on a Domain -
dan!sh wrote:
I would have called it BRB just to see your reaction.
:laugh: Or as is often the case, BBL.
Latest Article:
Create a Digital Ocean Droplet for .NET Core Web API with a real SSL Certificate on a Domain -
dan!sh wrote:
called it BRB
We need a "vomiting" reaction! People using SMS abbreviations in their code should be defenestrated, then hangéd* from the nearest lamppost as a warning to others! :mad: :) * Much worse than a regular hanging!
Freedom is the freedom to say that two plus two make four. If that is granted, all else follows. -- 6079 Smith W.
-
It's based on waiting for a single object. There are also WaitAny and WaitAll that wait on an array of objects.
Its not waiting for an object, its pausing itself until the timeout period elapse or the release signal is received. I think it should just be called wait(). Wait one implies that it waits until the supplied thread is released which is not what happens.
