FW by Rick Reed: RE: [SDLTF-Members] SDL-News: SAVE: Request for additional feedback

Subject: FW by Rick Reed: RE: [SDLTF-Members] SDL-News: SAVE: Request for additional feedback
From: Rick Reed TSE (rickreed#tseng.co.uk)
Date: Sat Jan 10 2004 - 12:41:58 GMT

Become an SDL Forum Society member <http://www.sdl-forum.org/Society/members.htm>
The originator of this message is responsible for its content.
-----From Rick Reed TSE <rickreed#tseng.co.uk> to sdlnews -----

From: "Anthony Weber" <weberaa#worldnet.att.net>
To: <sdlnews#sdl-forum.org>
Date: Thu, 8 Jan 2004 16:29:11 -0600


I, too, am not a member of the task force, but thought I'd provide an
example that is especially useful if 'Save' is available.

Patrick Frend is correct in that implementation of a scenario such as was
noted below is straight-forward. However, there's another scenario that is
a bit more difficult to handle, unless one has a save capability. That is
when the reset signal is received, but one wants to react to it only when
the process's queue is empty (i.e., discard all other signals).

In order to accomplish this, one can save the reset signal, discard all of
the other signals, and use the 'empty queue' or provided ( < true > ) signal
to react to the empty queue, and then transition to another state that can
react to the reset signal that was saved while the other signals were being


Anthony A. Weber
STEDEK Software
331 N. High Pointe Ct.
Roselle, IL 60172
Cell: 847-910-6674

--End text from Rick Reed TSE <rickreed#tseng.co.uk> to sdlnews ---
For extra SDL Forum Society benefits join at <http://www.sdl-forum.org/Society/members.htm>

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