Vinzent Hoefler wrote:
The answer to my "I always thought a timer is more comparable to an interrupt or signal than a polling loop." was "That is a very common misconception." which I still refuse as being a correct answer.
The irony is of course that you clamp to your interrupt definition, but still implement your log timed event with a loop :-).
Especially outside of the usual GUI-application, we seemed to be talking about, because the user/programmer somehow has to make sure that the polling is actually done some time in the future. Considering that a simply "ReadLn" can block indefinitely already, this is quite hard to accomplish then, isn't it?
Well, readln is used in the trivial (T)UIs; TUIs/GUIs are usually event-driven, like networked apps also can be. A Timer fits in a event-driven app just fine, and then a timer doesn't interrupt anything anymore; but your intuition may say that it should, that's why it's a common misconception.
Micha _______________________________________________ fpc-devel maillist - fpc-devel@lists.freepascal.org http://lists.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/fpc-devel
