On Tue, Sep 14, 2004 at 03:32:06PM -0500, Aaron W. LaFramboise wrote:
This is what I assumed, but he has a point here. You (Aaron) propose a class basic_multiplexor, shouldn't that be basic_demultiplexor?
Yes. However, the difference between a demultiplexor and multiplexor is not entirely obvious to me in this context. (We could invent one, if it were valuable, but I don't think it is). I just like short names. :)
A multiplexor is something with many inputs and one output. A demultiplexor is something with one input and many outputs. I think demultiplexor is the most obvious because this thing has many outputs: All the different event handler. The single input might be considered to be the single system call in which the thread is sleeping, or just the single 'demultiplexor' object itself. -- Carlo Wood <carlo@alinoe.com>