In Inform 7, what is the opposite of entering a container? - inform7

I have an Inform 7 story in which the player starts the game inside a container. I would like to say some text when the player leaves the container. When I use the conditional: "After exiting..." I get an error. "After entering..." works, so I assume I just have the wrong verb for exiting.
Here's the code in question:
The Hibernation Chamber is a room.
The Hibernation Pod is a container in the Hibernation Chamber. The Hibernation Pod is enterable and fixed in place. The description is "It looks just like the twenty or so others in the room, except the lid is open."
The player is in the Hibernation Pod.
After exiting the Hibernation Pod, say "You stand, blinking, and looking at two concentric arcs of identical, shiny white hibernation pods in a strange octagonally shaped room. The only break in the pods is for doors to the north and northeast. A bulky table with a clear top occupies the center of the two arcs of pods."
If I replace "After exiting" with "After entering" it builds and runs just fine. But, I want the rule to fire when the player gets out of the pod, not into the pod.
So what is the opposite of "entering" a container in Inform 7? I tried "exiting", "leaving", "getting out of", all to no avail. It just gives the following error:
Problem. You wrote 'After exiting the Hibernation Pod' , which seems to introduce a rule taking effect >only if the action is 'exiting the Hibernation Pod'. But that did not make sense as a description of an >action. I am unable to place this rule into any rulebook.
I have scoured the manual and examples, but nothing has helped. I'd be happy just to find a list of verbs that Inform 7 understands.

The keyword is "from".
The player does not exit a container, player exits from a container.
Here's the same code, this time with "exiting from" and it works.
The Hibernation Chamber is a room.
The Hibernation Pod is a container in the Hibernation Chamber. The Hibernation Pod is enterable and fixed in place. The description is "It looks just like the twenty or so others in the room, except the lid is open."
The player is in the Hibernation Pod.
After exiting from the Hibernation Pod, say "You stand, blinking, and looking at two concentric arcs of identical, shiny white hibernation pods in a strange octagonally shaped room. The only break in the pods is for doors to the north and northeast. A bulky table with a clear top occupies the center of the two arcs of pods."

You can find a list of verbs Inform 7 understands under the Index in the Inform 7 program (try Actions → Alphabetical). However, the entry for exiting still isn't very clear on how to match the “container exited from” in a rule (image). The documentation is a little lacking here.
The magic that makes from work is this bit of the Standard Rules:
Exiting is an action applying to nothing.
The exiting action translates into I6 as "Exit".
The exiting action has an object called the container exited from (matched as "from").
As you can see, Inform 7 considers “exiting” an action applying to nothing. (Philosophically, there's only one thing you can ever exit, and it's “whatever container or room you're in”. It wouldn't make sense to exit lamp or exit table. So it doesn't need an object.) It's a little pesky, but that's why *exiting the Hibernation Pod doesn't work.
Instead, that container exited from action variable is set to “whatever container or room you're in” at the start of an exiting action:
Setting action variables for exiting:
now the container exited from is the holder of the actor.
The fact that this action variable is matched as "from" is a convenience that lets us abbreviate:
After exiting when the container exited from is the Hibernation Pod, …
into:
After exiting from the Hibernation Pod,
See §12.10. Action variables.

Related

In AnyLogic, I am wondering if there is a way to free my agents in the wait block after a specified amount of time?

One of the processes in my production line is a clamp station. Pieces of wood are glued together and can't be moved until after their drying time is complete. What would you suggest using to demonstrate this in AnyLogic? I was thinking a wait block, but I am not sure how to free an agent after a given amount of time.
There's a timeout option in the wait block that you can use and setup a defined timeout... you can find that in the advanced section of the properties, a checkbox called "enabled exit on timeout"
Note that the exit port for the timeout is on the top right of the block.

Can a parent process determine if its child has received a SIGINT?

Suppose, I launch a parent process, which launches a subprocess, but then the parent receives a SIGINT. I want the parent to exit, but I don't want the child process to linger and/or become a zombie. I need to make sure it dies.
If I can determine that the child also received a SIGINT, then it is probably cleaning up on its own. In that case, I'd prefer to briefly wait while it finishes and exits on its own. But if it did not receive a SIGINT, then I will send it a SIGTERM (or SIGKILL) immediately and let the parent proceed with its own cleanup.
How can I figure out if the child recevied the SIGINT? (Leaving aside the fact that it might not even respond to SIGINT...) Do I just have to guess, based on whether or not the parent is running in the foreground process group? What if the SIGINT was sent programmatically, not via Ctrl+C?
How can I figure out if the child received the SIGINT?
Perhaps you can't. And what should matter to you is if the child handled SIGINT (it could have ignored it). See my answer to your other question.
However, in many cases, the signal sent by Ctrl C was sent to a process group. Then you might have got that signal too.
In pathological cases, your entire system experiments thrashing and the child process had not even being scheduled yet to process the signal.
I want the parent to exit, but I don't want the child process to linger and/or become a zombie. I need to make sure it dies.
Maybe you want to use somewhere daemon(3) ?
BTW, I don't understand your question, because I have to guess its (ungiven) motivations. Are you caring about job control or implementing a shell? In what concrete cases do you really care that the child got the SIGINT and what does that mean to you?

Unreal Engine 4 multiplayer LAN - Second player not spawning

I am trying to set up a basic LAN two player game on UE4, I have been able to do the following:
Host a game
Search for games being hosted
Join the hosted game (partly)
I need help with the following:
Spawning the second players character.
Second player to control the second spawned character.
At the moment when my second game instance joins the hosted instance however the camera stays fixed in the starting spot with no spawned character to move. It has joined the hosted game because I can see the first player moving around from player two's screen.
The picture of the blueprints are below. Let me know if you need more info, thanks for the help!! :)
https://s30.postimg.org/opxn89pgh/2.png
https://s30.postimg.org/km19tiiw1/6.png
I found the error in the game mode. i needed to change default pawn class to thirdpersoncharactor.

Unity Networking - Rigidbody2D

I'm working on a multiplayer soccer game (1 vs 1).
- There is a ball in scene and a rigidbody2D is attached to it.
- Player1(rigidbody2D) is instantiating with Network.Instantiated when server is registered.
- Player2(rigidbody2D) is instantiating with Network.Instantiated when client is connected to server.
Player1 sends its position with RPC in Update function.
Player2 sends its position with RPC in Update function.
Server sends ball's position and rotation with RPC in Update function.
In this case there is jittering problem in opposite side (I mean, while controlling Player1, which is server, on client side Player1's movement is not smooth and while controlling Player2, which is client, on server side Player2's movement is not smooth)
This is my first problem, i'm not sure it will continue when i build and run it on phones.
My second and the biggest problem is Player2's rigidbody2D is NOT working well, i mean, when he hits the ball, OnCollisionEnter2D function is WORKING (there is an AddForce line in there), but the standard rigidbody2D behavior is not working, when i walk to ball, Player2 and the ball just stops when i delete the OnCollisionEnter2D function! ---- But Player1's rigidbody2D works pretty well. So, i couldn't figure why it is not working well, the ball isn't being instantiated on server or client side, there is no reason to act different to each player for ball...
Please help me with this two problems. In addition, if you have any better idea to build this type of game's network structure please tell me.

Erlang supervisor with one critical child

We are in the process of re-organizing our applications supervision tree to make it more robustly handle failures and re-starts. However, we have a scenario where we have one parent supervisor that starts four child supervisors. The problem we have is that the first child supervisor starts several children gen_servers that must be started and initialized prior to the second child supervisor starting or it will fail.
So, I need a startup like the following:
test_app.erl -> super_supervisor -> [config_supervisor, auth_supervisor, rest_supervisor]
The trick I'm having trouble with is that config_supervisor must complete all initialization prior to auth_supervisor or rest_supervisor being started. With the rest_for_one startup strategy I get, essentially, this behavior but only by allowing auth_supervisor to fail because the needed config is not there. I would prefer to just request that config_supervisor is completed with it's initialization (which includes starting several gen_servers) prior to moving-on to auth_supervisor.
This seems like a common scenario that would have been conquered previously but, I am having a hard time "googling" a solution. Does anybody have advice or sample code that might exist to handle this scenario?
Supervisors do a synchronous start of their children, starting each one in turn before starting the next in the order they occur in the childspeclist. So your super_supervisor should start its children in the right order, first config_supervisor, then auth_supervisor and finally rest_supervisor by having them in that order. A supervisor must (successfully) start all its children before it is considered to be started. So if config_supervisor has all the necessary processes which must be started during the initialization as its children then super_supervisor will not start the other supervisors until the config_supervisor is done.
In this case you would not need rest_for_one to ensure starting in the right order if the children are in the right order in the childspeclist.
For a worker process, gen_server/gen_fsm/gen_event, they are considered started when their init callback returns.
Have I understood your description and question correctly?
You may try to move config_supervisor into its own application and set the application as a requirement for the main one, in this case the config application will be started first and then the main supervisor with auth_supervisor, etc will start their initialisation.
Did you look at the rest_for_one restart strategy? It seems that it should be covenient in this case, the middle supervisor starts the gen_servers in a defined order and last the leaf supervisor who in turn start the critical process.

Resources