Re: [vdr] RFC: recording strategy on timer conflicts

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 ...