Re: Thread safety of events
- From: "Armin Zingler" <az.nospam@xxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 11 Jul 2007 05:34:48 +0200
"Peter Duniho" <NpOeStPeAdM@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> schrieb
On Tue, 10 Jul 2007 16:49:27 -0700, Armin Zingler
<az.nospam@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > O2 doesn't "catch" events at all.
>
> No, it does. I wouldn't say it if it didn't. "Catch" is short for
> "contains a procedure that is the event handler of an event of" -
> I thought, this is a common term.
In .NET, "catch" is typically used for exceptions, while "handles"
is typically used for events.
While I might find less point in quibbling over the semantics than
John, if we're going to argue about common usage, John's point is
correct. "Catch" is not at all a common term used to describe event
handling.
I wrote "catch an event", so what do you think I am referring to? An event or an exception? Mind the context. Too unambigious to misunderstand.
Armin
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Thread safety of events
- From: Peter Duniho
- Re: Thread safety of events
- References:
- Thread safety of events
- From: Armin Zingler
- Re: Thread safety of events
- From: John Saunders [MVP]
- Re: Thread safety of events
- From: Armin Zingler
- Re: Thread safety of events
- From: Peter Duniho
- Thread safety of events
- Prev by Date: Re: attach to process not started in debug mode?
- Next by Date: Re: Maintain list of attached event handlers (.Net 1.1)
- Previous by thread: Re: Thread safety of events
- Next by thread: Re: Thread safety of events
- Index(es):