[ Usenet FAQs | Web FAQs | Documents | RFC Index ]
Part1 - Part2 - Part3 - Part4 - Part5 - Part6 - Part7 - Single Page
Top Document: comp.windows.x Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ) 7/7
Previous Document: 152) Why does the process size of my X programs go up,up,up?
Next Document: 154) Why doesn't XtDestroyWidget() actually destroy the widget?
-
Search the FAQ Archives
Part1 - Part2 - Part3 - Part4 - Part5 - Part6 - Part7 - Single Page
Top Document: comp.windows.x Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ) 7/7
Previous Document: 152) Why does the process size of my X programs go up,up,up?
Next Document: 154) Why doesn't XtDestroyWidget() actually destroy the widget?
153) Are callbacks guaranteed to be called in the order registered?
Although some books demonstrate that the current implementation of Xt happens to call callback procedures in the order in which they are registered, the specification does not guarantee such a sequence, and supplemental authoritative documents (i.e. the Asente/Swick volume) do say that the order is undefined. Because the callback list can be manipulated by both the widget and the application, Xt cannot guarantee the order of execution. In general, the callback procedures should be thought of as operating independently of one another and should not depend on side-effects of other callbacks operating; if a seqence is needed, then the single callback to be registered can explicitly call other functions necessary. [4/92; thanks to converse@x.org]
Top Document: comp.windows.x Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ) 7/7
Previous Document: 152) Why does the process size of my X programs go up,up,up?
Next Document: 154) Why doesn't XtDestroyWidget() actually destroy the widget?
Part1 - Part2 - Part3 - Part4 - Part5 - Part6 - Part7 - Single Page
[ Usenet FAQs | Web FAQs | Documents | RFC Index ]
Send corrections/additions to the FAQ Maintainer:
faq%craft@uunet.uu.net (X FAQ maintenance address)
Last Update October 22 2009 @ 05:36 AM