-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
T wrote:
> On Mon, 17 Jul 2006 00:10:43 -0500, Ron Johnson wrote:
>
>>> I find that in many cases I need my background tasks to be executed in
>>> sequence. Ie, I need background task-b to start right after background
>>> task-a has properly started.
>>>
>>> So far I haven't found a good way to do it. I used
>>>
>>> task-a & sleep 2; task-b &
>>>
>>> but that 'sleep 2' has changed to 'sleep 5' and still sometimes task-b
>>> starts before task-a. I can raise the wait time, but it means that
>>> task-b would normally start too late...
>>>
>>> Any good way?
>> "background" and "in sequence" are a bit (no, a *lot*) contradictory.
>
> yeah, so true.
>
> hi, thanks everyone who replied.
>
>> What you probably want is a *sequence* and put *it* in the background.
>> This, maybe:
>>
>> (task-a && sleep 2 && task-b) &
>
> or as Cameron suggested
>
> { task-a ; task-b ; } &
>
> to avoid needlessly forking.
>
> This is the common theme for all the answers so far. But the problem is
> that my background tasks are real background tasks, eg. emacs and tk
> scripts, that they'd not finish and return.
>
> So I guess that I have to rely on longer sleeping then?
But *logically* how do you sequence these events? Once you have a
firm, explicit, unambiguous plan, then it can be coded.
- --
Ron Johnson, Jr.
Jefferson LA USA
Is "common sense" really valid?
For example, it is "common sense" to white-power racists that
whites are superior to blacks, and that those with brown skins
are mud people.
However, that "common sense" is obviously wrong.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.3 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
iD8DBQFEu6txS9HxQb37XmcRAsSIAJ9IGJXGNYBkAypY038x5TLFq6FkIwCfb/ri
u6U2rUZGBPEEvbSMXbF61fU=
=DwpY
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
