| Thread Previous • Date Previous • Date Next • Thread Next |
On 08/13/2013 05:48 PM, Lorenzo Marcantonio wrote:
On Tue, Aug 13, 2013 at 07:14:05AM -0500, Dick Hollenbeck wrote:If you ignore the context of application, then this is the same thing as guessing that a mechanic hates his 5mm wrench when he goes to loosen a 11mm nut.I think it more than using a ratchet instead of an open wrench to loose the nut. Same result, different way to do it. Of course a really tight nut may require a long wrench and break the ratchet... i.e. not necessarily coroutines are the solution.
The solution I proposed does not make coroutines obligatory. If you don't want to use them in a particular tool, just don't call any Wait()/Yield() methods. TOOL_INTERACTIVE constructor could have an additional parameter that prevents creating an unnecessary stack frame for coroutine-less tools.
Look at the PDF I put on ohwr.org - one can use coroutines, function pointers or enum+switch for the FSMs, depending on his/her coding habits. Nothing is forbidden.As a way to maintain the tool state machine (fed by events), they seem appropriate to me; of course everyone will propose his own 'best' idea (heck, no women here:P)
Tom
| Thread Previous • Date Previous • Date Next • Thread Next |
