Re: Couple of Questions

• Date: Mon, 19 Feb 1996 14:48:23 PST
• From:
  Andrew Wendt <powerpig@m-net.arbornet.org>
• Cc: moo-cows.PARC@xerox.com
• Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
• In-Reply-To: <199602192217.RAA12813@athens.emi.net>

> I have a verb that looks roughly like this....
> 
> @verb #15711:call_regen()
> 
> rooms = children(#15711);
> timer = 20;
> while (timer > 0)
    fork (0)
  >   for x in (rooms)
  >     x:regen();
  >     x:action();
  >   endfor
    endfork
>   suspend(60);
>   timer = timer + 1;
[This should be -1 or it will count up forever?]
> endwhile
> 
> 
> It does what I want it to with regen() (which is call the verb regen() and
> action() in every room that is a child of #15711 every minute for 20
> minutes) But for action() it doesn't.  action() is very similar to the above
> verb in that is has the same while statements to cause a timer affect.  So,
> if action() takes a while and uses suspend() also, it messes up the timing
> of call_regen().  Any way to prevent this?

By putting fork/endfork around your calls you create a new task for them 
that isn't affected by the previous task suspending or reading.

TTFN
Andy

• Couple of Questions
• From: Muddy Waters <muddy@emi.net>

• Prev: RE: Couple of Questions
• Next: Re: Couple of Questions
• Index: MOO-cows
• Thread: MOO-cows