This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the Cygwin project.
RE: [setup PATCH] next_dialog micropatch (2)
- From: "Gary R. Van Sickle" <g dot r dot vansickle at worldnet dot att dot net>
- To: <cygwin-apps at cygwin dot com>
- Date: Mon, 28 Jul 2003 20:11:56 -0500
- Subject: RE: [setup PATCH] next_dialog micropatch (2)
> On Mon, 28 Jul 2003, Gary R. Van Sickle wrote:
> > > Robert Collins wrote:
> > > > On Tue, 2003-07-29 at 02:13, Max Bowsher wrote:
> > > >
> > > >> If we do add a class, it should probably be a thread class
> from which all
> > > of
> > > >> our threaded tasks can derive. Regardless, I don't see that any further
> > > >> cleanup will reverse these changes. I can see how it may
> involve changing
> > > >> the same lines to a third form, but that is not a reversal.
> > > >
> > > > Are you thinking of the (IIR the name C) the 'completion object'
> > > > pattern? That would work too.
> > >
> > > I have no idea what this means.
> > It's "Gang Of Four"-speak, though I'm not sure this is actually original
> > Gang Of Four, i.e. "Design Patterns: Elements Of Reusable
> > Object-Oriented Software" by four guys and a foreward by Grady Booch.
> > I don't recall running across it in there.
> I think Rob might have meant the "Asynchronous Completion Token" pattern:
> <http://www.cs.wustl.edu/~schmidt/PDF/ACT.pdf> (first Google match). This
> is definitely post-GOF.
Seems like a lot of work to go to just to eliminate a global variable.
Gary R. Van Sickle