Zero timeout receive

[James Wirth]

On Tuesday, 16 April 2013 at 21:38:39 UTC, Sean Kelly wrote:
> On Apr 15, 2013, at 7:22 PM, James Wirth 
> <jwirth1 at suddenlink.net> wrote:
>> 
>> Special casing receiveTimeout would introduce less name bloat 
>> but might impact other receive performance.  As a Java 
>> programmer I tend to ignore slowdowns of 2:1 and as a Python 
>> programmer even 70:1 - but I could see that system programmers 
>> might disagree.
>
> Currently, receiveTimeout will call Condition.wait(n) for any 
> wait time passed.  For a wait time of 0, this will be 
> equivalent to a yield(), so the calling thread will be 
> suspended for a context switch if there are other threads 
> waiting to run.  I could special case this to not wait at all, 
> but am inclined to say that the yield() effect is a good thing 
> here, as it helps concurrency.

Many Thanks,  I appreciate the "hand holding".  Will use 
receiveTimeout(0,...) without fear henceforth.  I think yielding 
in the windows event thread will indeed benefit the application.