SDL-News: Flushing the SAVEd signals

Subject: SDL-News: Flushing the SAVEd signals
From: Andreas Prinz (
Date: Fri Jan 09 2004 - 07:43:02 GMT

Become an SDL Forum Society member <>
The originator of this message is responsible for its content.
-----From Andreas Prinz <> to sdlnews -----

Dear all,
William H. Skelton wrote:
> A problem has been identified that there is no atomic way to flush
> signals that have been saved. For example, if a signal E1 is saved,
> then E2 arrives causes a reset of the state machine, then another E1
> arrives, there is no way to flush at the time of the reset the saved E1
> without losing the new E1.

As some people pointed out, it is very simple to flush *all* E1 signals
in the input buffer. This is also the way I would think a state machine
should work: either it is able to handle a signal, or is is not.
As Susanne said, making a difference between signals according to some
timed criterion is a new requirement, probably independent of SAVE.

However, I am not going to buy this requirement. Is there a convincing
example why this kind of "flushing" is necessary in the subset?
In all the projects I worked with, it was not necessary.

Best regards,

Prof. Andreas Prinz
Agder University College
Open Systems Development Group
Tel: +47 3725 3220

--End text from Andreas Prinz <> to sdlnews --- For extra SDL Forum Society benefits join at <>

This archive was generated by hypermail 2a23 : Thu May 09 2013 - 16:05:50 GMT