How to write a time delay function?

[Chen Shusheng]

Hello,
I want to write a time delay function like "Timedelay(floa t time_lenth){}".
When execute it, it will delay some seconds as long as "time_lenth "
indicating. Could you help on how to write such a function?

----------------
lovely newsgroup
----------------

[Keith Thompson]

Richard Heathfield <in*****@invali d.invalidwrites :

Keith Thompson said:

<snip>

>That's a portable way to do it, but not a good way to do it.

He didn't ask for a good way to do it. By posting in comp.lang.c, he asked
for a comp.lang.c way to do it.

No, he asked for a way to do it. If he were knowledgeable enough to
know in detail what's a comp.lang.c question and what isn't, he
wouldn't have had to ask in the first place.

People ask off-topic questions here all the time. The usual response
is to tell the OP that the question is off-topic and suggest a better
place to ask.

To someone who doesn't know C very well, it's not unreasonable to
think that the language might provide a good time delay function.

I can understand giving deliberately bad answers to "do my homework"
questions, but the OP was just looking for information.

In fact, the OP's question was very close to FAQ 19.37, "How can I
implement a delay, or time a user's response, with sub-second
resolution?".

--
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keit h) ks***@mib.org <http://www.ghoti.net/~kst>
San Diego Supercomputer Center <* <http://users.sdsc.edu/~kst>
We must do something. This is something. Therefore, we must do this.

[Keith Thompson]

"Chen Shusheng" <cs*****@gmail. comwrites:

I want to write a time delay function like "Timedelay(floa t time_lenth){}".
When execute it, it will delay some seconds as long as "time_lenth "
indicating. Could you help on how to write such a function?

The comp.lang.c FAQ is at <http://www.c-faq.com/>. See question
19.37, "How can I implement a delay, or time a user's response, with
sub-second resolution?". (Quick summary: There's no good portable way
to do this, but there are a number of system-specific solutions.)

--
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keit h) ks***@mib.org <http://www.ghoti.net/~kst>
San Diego Supercomputer Center <* <http://users.sdsc.edu/~kst>
We must do something. This is something. Therefore, we must do this.

[Richard Heathfield]

Keith Thompson said:

Richard Heathfield <in*****@invali d.invalidwrites :

>Keith Thompson said:

<snip>

>>That's a portable way to do it, but not a good way to do it.

He didn't ask for a good way to do it. By posting in comp.lang.c, he
asked for a comp.lang.c way to do it.

No, he asked for a way to do it.

He got one. :-)

If he were knowledgeable enough to
know in detail what's a comp.lang.c question and what isn't, he
wouldn't have had to ask in the first place.

Not necessarily true. Plenty of people know what is topical in comp.lang.c
and ask topical questions.

People ask off-topic questions here all the time.

The question was not off-topic.

<snip>

In fact, the OP's question was very close to FAQ 19.37, "How can I
implement a delay, or time a user's response, with sub-second
resolution?".

True enough - although, as you clearly spotted, he actually asked for a
resolution in seconds, rather than anything finer.

--
Richard Heathfield
"Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29/7/1999
http://www.cpax.org.uk
email: rjh at above domain (but drop the www, obviously)

[Mark McIntyre]

On Fri, 8 Sep 2006 17:29:00 +0800, in comp.lang.c , "Chen Shusheng"
<cs*****@gmail. comwrote:

>
My system is windowsXP. Where should I post to get the answer? Could you pls
indicate?

The very first thing you should do is search the MSDN or your compiler
documentation. Typically such functions tell are used to make your
programme "sleep". Thats a hint for the search.
--
Mark McIntyre

"Debugging is twice as hard as writing the code in the first place.
Therefore, if you write the code as cleverly as possible, you are,
by definition, not smart enough to debug it."
--Brian Kernighan

[Mark McIntyre]

On Fri, 8 Sep 2006 15:57:18 +0200, in comp.lang.c , "John F"
<sp**@127.0.0.1 wrote:

>
The things to look for are SetTimer and KillTimer...

Euh, no. but thats why we don't ask or answer system-specific
questions here.
--
Mark McIntyre

"Debugging is twice as hard as writing the code in the first place.
Therefore, if you write the code as cleverly as possible, you are,
by definition, not smart enough to debug it."
--Brian Kernighan

[nicolasbaum]

#INCLUDE <WINDOWS.H>

....
SLEEP(1000) /*in milliseconds*/

[Keith Thompson]

ni*********@gma il.com writes:

#INCLUDE <WINDOWS.H>

...
SLEEP(1000) /*in milliseconds*/

No.

--
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keit h) ks***@mib.org <http://www.ghoti.net/~kst>
San Diego Supercomputer Center <* <http://users.sdsc.edu/~kst>
We must do something. This is something. Therefore, we must do this.

[CBFalconer]

ni*********@gma il.com wrote:

>
#INCLUDE <WINDOWS.H>

...
SLEEP(1000) /*in milliseconds*/

There is no such directive as #INCLUDE. You may be thinking of
#include. If so, there is no such header as <WINDOWS.H(or
<windows.h>) in standard C. After which there is no such standard
function as SLEEP() in standard C.

Standard C, as described in the various ISO standards, is the
subject of discussion here. Any peculiar non-standard systems are
OFF-TOPIC.

--
"The smaller aperture of the lid has been designed to prevent
hedgehogs from entering the McFlurry container in the
unfortunate incidence that the lid is littered"
-- McDonalds, as quoted in Time, 2006-09-11
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

[John F]

Mark McIntyre wrote:

On Fri, 8 Sep 2006 15:57:18 +0200, in comp.lang.c , "John F"
<sp**@127.0.0.1 wrote:

>>
The things to look for are SetTimer and KillTimer...

Euh, no.

Why not? :-) It can be done. BTDT. It is as portable and standardized
as any way to achieve this...

but thats why we don't ask or answer system-specific
questions here.

*gg* I know. But if you know better, why not correct it? IMHO under
windows SetTimer and KillTimer are excellent for timing in the range
of milliseconds. They are quite precise too. I even use them in (god
help me here in c.l.c.) VB. In C there are other possibilities but I
usually write a handler for WM_TIMER and things are done. Nothing to
worry any more. If you want a delay, use a lock-variable that is set
on timer start and release it in the callback function. Highest
precision you can imagine under windoze... If you ar not satisfied yet
use the multimedia-timer - then it's even possible to do timing in the
range of µs.

All not Standard C, all not portable. It just "works". So I'll hop out
of this obviously off-topic stuff here :-)

If you want to shout at me, do so. I have no problem with it.

--
Johannes
You can have it:
Quick, Accurate, Inexpensive.
Pick two.

[Keith Thompson]

"John F" <sp**@127.0.0.1 writes:

Mark McIntyre wrote:

>On Fri, 8 Sep 2006 15:57:18 +0200, in comp.lang.c , "John F"
<sp**@127.0.0. 1wrote:

>>The things to look for are SetTimer and KillTimer...

Euh, no.

Why not? :-) It can be done. BTDT. It is as portable and standardized
as any way to achieve this...

>but thats why we don't ask or answer system-specific
questions here.

*gg* I know. But if you know better, why not correct it?

[snip]

Because this isn't the place for it.

Assuming SetTimer and KillTimer are specific to MS Windows, there are
a number of Windows-specific newsgroups full of people who know all
about this stuff. comp.lang.c, on the other hand, is constantly
inundated with off-topic posts; carring on off-topic technical
discussions here would only make it worse, and make things more
difficult for those of us who want to talk about C.

--
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keit h) ks***@mib.org <http://www.ghoti.net/~kst>
San Diego Supercomputer Center <* <http://users.sdsc.edu/~kst>
We must do something. This is something. Therefore, we must do this.