I seem to have having an issue with the !Play bang. I have an "invisible" skin that opens a popup whenever a new Gmail is detected. That popup tells me I have a new message and is supposed to play a sound, but the sound isn't working.
The sound works on my music players, but Rainmeter won't play it. The log for the skin says "Invalid bang: !Play", but the Rainmeter docs say this is a bang. Anyone know what's happening?
It's not !Play, just Play. Although it is listed under "bangs", it really isn't one exactly. It is just a system command that isn't directly related to any given skin. For example you could have one skin start a sound and a completely different one stop it. In addition, you can only have one sound playing at a time, Rainmeter-wide.
You are not the first, nor will you be the last. I have often gone back and forth whether we should deprecate those Play / PlayStop / PlayLoop commands for !Play / !PlayStop / !PlayLoop just to avoid confusion, but at the end of the day I guess they really just aren't "bangerish" enough to do so.
The fact that they are really independent of the skin they are run from, can't be run from the Rainmeter command line, and are a single-thread to an internal Windows sound routine that allows only one sound to be executed at a time, Rainmeter-wide, makes them just "unbangerish" enough to make it risky to try to slip them by as a bang just to save on folks missing that they don't have the "!" on them. That could cause its own set of confusions.
I could easily make the argument either way really.
There are many ways to be different - there is only one way to be yourself - be amazing at it
The law of averages says what it means; even if you get everything right, you will get something wrong. Therefore; self managing error trapping initiates another set of averages - amongst the errors, some of them will not be errors, instead those instances will appear to be "luck". One cannot complain of the 'appearance' of 'infinite regress of causation', even if it does not have a predictable pattern, only that it requires luck to achieve.
There are many ways to be different - there is only one way to be yourself - be amazing at it
The law of averages says what it means; even if you get everything right, you will get something wrong. Therefore; self managing error trapping initiates another set of averages - amongst the errors, some of them will not be errors, instead those instances will appear to be "luck". One cannot complain of the 'appearance' of 'infinite regress of causation', even if it does not have a predictable pattern, only that it requires luck to achieve.
There are many ways to be different - there is only one way to be yourself - be amazing at it
The law of averages says what it means; even if you get everything right, you will get something wrong. Therefore; self managing error trapping initiates another set of averages - amongst the errors, some of them will not be errors, instead those instances will appear to be "luck". One cannot complain of the 'appearance' of 'infinite regress of causation', even if it does not have a predictable pattern, only that it requires luck to achieve.