On 12/09/2023 19:51, Mirko via Python-list wrote:
I have also found that after() is a cure for some ills, though I
avoid using it more than I have to because it feels ... a bit
fragile, perhaps.
Yeah. Though for me it was the delay which made it seem fragile. With
a 0 delay, this looks much more reliable.
At one point I found myself writing, or thinking of writing, this sort
of code
after(1, DoSomeThing)
after(2, Do SomeThingElse)
after(3, DoAThirdThing)
...
but this just felt wrong (is it reliable if some Things take more than a
millisecond? It may well be; I don't know), and error-prone if I want
to add some more Things.
Rob Cliffe
--
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
