Alfredo Braunstein wrote:
> I've added the explanation in a comment.
>
> --- forkedcontr.C 2003/02/13 16:53:14 1.7
> +++ forkedcontr.C 2003/02/25 10:26:02
> @@ -130,19 +130,19 @@
> }
>
> if (remove_it) {
> - // Emit signal and remove the item from the list
> - actCall->emitSignal();
> - delete actCall;
> // erase returns the next iterator, so decrement
> it // to continue the loop.
> - ListType::iterator prev = it;
> - --prev;
> forkedCalls.erase(it);
> - it = prev;
> + // Emit signal and remove the item from the list
> + actCall->emitSignal();
> + delete actCall;
> + /* start all over: emiting the signal can result
> + * in changing the list (Ab)
> + */
> + it = forkedCalls.begin();
> }
> }
I don't see the bug. You return to the start of the list, I move to the next
itme in the list. The 'prev' stuff is safe if ugly, as I understand list.
Please improve my education.
> -
> - if (!forkedCalls.empty()) {
> + if (!forkedCalls.empty() && !timeout_->running()) {
> timeout_->start();
> }
Fair enough. I'll commit this bit.
--
Angus
