From: Carlo Wood (carlo_at_[hidden])
Date: 2004-09-14 16:43:00
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'
-- Carlo Wood <carlo_at_[hidden]>
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk