[vdr] Centralized 'thread active' handling

[Klaus Schmidinger]

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