On Mon, 22 Apr 2002, Peter Donald wrote:
> On Mon, 22 Apr 2002 00:32, Torsten Curdt wrote:
> > > Which is not much likely to happen... ;-)
> > > Shouldn't it be:
> > >
> > > if ( file.lastModified() > m_previousModified ) {
> > > // fire event
> > > m_previousModified = file.lastModified()
> > > }
> > >
> > > But then the "time" argument wouldn't make much sense...
>
> yep ;)
>
> > One way to solve this is to replace this:
> >
> > in ActiveMonitor:
> >
> > for( int i = 0; i < resources.length; i++ )
> > {
> > resources[ i ].testModifiedAfter( currentTestTime );
> > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> > }
> >
> > by this:
> >
> > for( int i = 0; i < resources.length; i++ )
> > {
> > resources[ i ].testModifiedAfter( resources[i].m_previousModified
> > ); ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ }
> >
> > question is only if this is really desired...
>
> I am not sure thats the way to do it. Personally I would still pass
> currentTestTime in through method but test a m_previosModified inside method
> (ie ignore the input parameter). As I imagine some resources using the
> current time as parameter - just not this one ;)
Same here ;) ...but I guess as the author Berin should give a comment
before I send a patch.
--
Torsten
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
