Christian Wieninger schrieb: >Am Dienstag, 23. Mai 2006 18:30 schrieb Andreas Brugger: > > >>of the devices (first or last): >> >> >>>- cDevice *d = NULL; >>>+ cDevice *d = device[0]; // or device[numDevices] >>> >>> >>So the two timers should evaluate to different priorities. >> >>Any thoughts on that? Do I miss something again? >> >> > >I think so ;-) because if d is set to first device then > > else if (d && device[i]->Priority() < d->Priority()) > pri = 6; // receiving but priority is lower > >the first loop does not match the if condition. It would work if d was >initially set to the last device. But I don't know if this would make >problems in any other cases. > > Ohhh ... right! I haven't thought that through completely it seems ... there is also a problem that the first (or last) device would be returned even if the devices doesn't provide the channel. This isn't as easy as I thought ...
