Re: eventAdd with zero delay?

Amos Jeffries <squid3_at_treenet.co.nz> writes:
> On 30/01/2013 2:47 p.m., Rainer Weikusat wrote:
>> What's the point of putting these onto the event queue? Wouldn't this
>> be better done with something like this?
>
> The Call queue and the Events queue are drained individually in
> alternating fashion. The first 0-delay event will not run until after
> the Call queue is empty.
>
> The Call queue by design lacks anything similar to the 'heavy' event
> loop exit point. So an explicit 0-delay event is used to break heavy
> sequences of Calls into separate chains.
>
> Using ScheduleCall immediately would be counter-productive in many of
> these cases.

Thank you. The reason I'm asking is mainly because 0-delay events are,
according to the comment in schedule, supposed to be executed in FIFO
order. Is this generally true for events, ie is the actual ordering
criterion always a pair (delay, sequence number) or just for 0-delay
events? The sequencing is implicitly guaranteed by an implementation
based on inserting events into a 'linear' queue of some kind. It is
not guaranteed for a heap-based implementation and would thus need to
be dealt with explicitly.
Received on Wed Jan 30 2013 - 12:21:44 MST