Klaus Schmidinger wrote: >> Udo Richter wrote: >>> The original patch did not attempt to fix Skip(), it just fixes the >>> wrong calculation of StartTime(). Skip() could be fixed by this >>> additional patch: (untested!) >> > I'm afraid this might have a nasty side effect. > Imagine the following scenario: > > - a weekly timer that records on Mondays at 20:00 > - at Monday, 19:00 the user decides to skip today's recording, > so he presses the red button on the timer > - some time later he decides to make this timer also record > on Tuesdays, so he edits the timer and sets the day flag for > Tuesday by pressing '2' I have no problem if Skip() continues to mean 'skip next recording' and sets day to one day later. With the fixed calculation of StartTime(), its not a big difference in user experience, and using Skip() to calculate future timers isn't the main goal here. (and can be done by either looping Skip() or smart use of Matches(t)) However, I would suggest to keep at least one startTime = 0; in Skip(), so the cached startTime is properly invalidated. Cheers, Udo
