On Samstag, 30. Oktober 2010, Ben Franksen wrote:
> On Freitag, 29. Oktober 2010, Andrew Johnson wrote:
> > On Friday 29 October 2010 14:15:54 Ralph Lange wrote:
> > > On 29.10.2010 15:10, Eric Norum wrote:
> > > > +dded to epicsEventTest and the application developers guide
> > > > has been updated +to describe this requirement.</p>
> > >
> > > Did you actually update the guide? At least I don't see it on
> > > launchpad yet...
> >
> > Working on it, I have some uncommitted formatting changes that I
> > want to keep separate that I'm also dealing with.
>
> While you're at it, please fix the description for wait and tryWait,
> they are most probably wrong. What is returned is an
> epicsEventWaitStatus, not boolean. When interpreted as boolean the
> return value is zero (false) if the event *did* happen
> (epicsEventWaitOK) and non-zero (true) if it did not happen
> (epicsEventWaitTimeout) or if an error happened
> (epicsEventWaitError). At least this is what the names suggest.
Oops. I have not looked close enough. The C and C++ interfaces differ in
the return value. The C++ methods really return bool, whereas the C
routines return the epicsEventWaitStatus. Am I the only one who finds
this confusing? What happens if the C++ method encounters an error?
Cheers
ben
- Replies:
- Re: epicsEvent semantics Andrew Johnson
- RE: epicsEvent semantics Jeff Hill
- References:
- epicsEvent semantics Eric Norum
- Re: epicsEvent semantics Andrew Johnson
- Re: epicsEvent semantics Ben Franksen
- Navigate by Date:
- Prev:
Re: epicsEvent semantics Ben Franksen
- Next:
Re: epicsEvent semantics Andrew Johnson
- Index:
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
<2010>
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024
- Navigate by Thread:
- Prev:
Re: epicsEvent semantics Ben Franksen
- Next:
Re: epicsEvent semantics Andrew Johnson
- Index:
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
<2010>
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024
|