Re: [vdr] Centralized 'thread active' handling

Luca Olivetti wrote:

Stefan Huelswitt wrote:

...

Wouldn't it be better to leave Active() untouched (instead of renaming to Running()) and create a new (differently named) function for the active var replacement? (e.g. Continue(), which would give good readability with while(Continue()))

In that case I'd suggest Terminated()

while(!Terminated())

it would somewhat reduce my confusion when switching from the elegance of delphi/lazarus to the awkwardness of C++ ;-)

Why use an extra negation here? I think a positive check ('Active()') is more straightforward than a negative one ('!Terminated()').

Just wondering: what does this have to do with "elegance" vs. "awkwardness"?

Klaus