How about commenting the choice of this name (is it interrupting tasks calling (delay()) from cont stack) and also that it is equivalent todelay(0) ?

If new function names are to be added, with restrictions on usage, like "use esp_break() if code is called from SYS", I suggest adding_from_sys in its name to make it clear.

yield() historically panics on purpose when it is called from SYS.
esp_break() is exactlyyield() withoutpanic(), callable from both cont and sys.
Considering that theyield()'spanic() is avoided bydelay(0) or its new flavouresp_break(), then we may just updateyield() to not panic no ?

I don't know what happened, but you must not have available the current sources somehow.
The actual comment now states, I think I adapted it after an earlier discussion:

// Replacement for delay(0). In CONT, same as yield(). Whereas yield() panics// in SYS, esp_break() is safe to call and only schedules CONT. Use yield()// whereever only called from CONT, use esp_break() if code is called from SYS// or both CONT and SYS.

Meaning,esp_break() is intended for both SYS and CONT.
With regard toyield() panicking in SYS, whereasdelay(0) does not andesp_break() of course does neither, I think this was discussed and it was stated thatyield() shall intentionally continue panicking when called from anywhere else but CONT.

I forgot to disable my previous answer before the last one. Sorry that this confused you.

So you proposeesp_break() for both sys and cont becauseyield() is for cont only, while they both do the same job, likedelay(0) which currently is used to replaceyield() everywhere where it is needed for sys and cont.
Then, you replacedelay(0) by the new sys+contyield() taste.
So we have nowyield(),delay(0),esp_break() ?
Why not simplyyield() with a comment ?

If the earlier discussion you refer to isthat one, it also says:

We could fix it for a major release

@devyte maybe you can elaborate on this:

The expressibility issue has been discussed before (a long time ago shortly after I arrived). It was deemed valid

@d-a-v Thanks, one can never look too many times at the code. I'm going to explain next that it's a bit different than you think, but that wasn't helped by me replacingdelay(0) byyield() on time too often - instead of byesp_break() (5c39094).

Then, you replace delay(0) by the new sys+cont yield() taste.
So we have now yield(), delay(0), esp_break() ?
Why not simply yield() with a comment ?

Delay(0) is either pointless, in those places where the code runs only ever from CONT, so for final clarity and to let the runtimepanic to express that contract, I'm replacing it byyield(). Again, only in those places.
Wherever code may run from SYS (and perhaps from CONT, too), the newesp_break() must be used to replacedelay(0). This is to make the intention clear not topanic in SYS, which I find obfuscated by a zero timedelay(0) call.
As you can see,yield() (intentional panic in SYS) is not the same asesp_break(), and my reservations aboutdelay(0) I've explained above.