For me, they were actually disappearing. Dropped into the void.
On Fri, Nov 6, 2015 at 11:41 AM, Bob Sneidar
wrote:
> I have seen times where saving a stack took an excessively long time to
> finish. I assumed that LC was doing some kind of high priority
> housekeeping. I have been using 6.7.6
I have seen times where saving a stack took an excessively long time to finish.
I assumed that LC was doing some kind of high priority housekeeping. I have
been using 6.7.6 since it came out.
Bob S
On Nov 6, 2015, at 10:24 , Dr. Hawkins
mailto:doch...@gmail.com>> wrote:
On Fri, Nov 6, 2015 a
On Fri, Nov 6, 2015 at 8:53 AM, Mike Bonner wrote:
> I've seen similar, to the point where keystrokes are dropped in the script
> editor, and I must type RELY slow to get things going.
>
at times when I assumed that that had happened, the keystrokes eventually
showed up . . .
--
Dr. Rich
I've seen similar, to the point where keystrokes are dropped in the script
editor, and I must type RELY slow to get things going. Unfortunately,
while it happens often enough to notice, I haven't managed to nail down a
recipe. Sometimes it goes away when I shut the dictionary, other times I
t
On Thu, Nov 5, 2015 at 3:29 PM, Ali Lloyd wrote:
> I have actually seen this myself once whilst running in debug mode from
> source, and I think it was stuck in a 'TryToEvaluate' loop for some reason
> - I think it can be stopped by doing Cmd + . although that might not be the
> same thing.
>
To
I am always in for this.
gc
gc
> On Nov 5, 2015, at 4:01 PM, J. Landman Gay wrote:
>
> It would be an interesting challenge if Richard could supply a sample of a
> long handler and see if we could reduce it.
___
use-livecode mailing list
use-livec
I have actually seen this myself once whilst running in debug mode from
source, and I think it was stuck in a 'TryToEvaluate' loop for some reason
- I think it can be stopped by doing Cmd + . although that might not be the
same thing.
Anyway, It's worth filing a bug report if there isn't one alrea
On Thu, Nov 5, 2015 at 1:01 PM, J. Landman Gay
wrote:
> I think he probably meant "script" rather than "handler." But even my most
> complex project wasn't that long. (If it really is a single handler then it
> isn't written correctly.) When I see numbers like that, my first thought is
> "optimiz
in it in total...
Date: Thu, 5 Nov 2015 09:04:46 -0800
Subject: garbage collection run amok again in 7.1.1Rc2?
From: doch...@gmail.com
To: use-livecode@lists.runrev.com
I am seeing the *long*, as in several seconds, delays again when making
changes in long (10k+ line) handlers. A minor edit,
10,000 lines in one liveCode handler ?... really !?... I don't think, .. no, I
know that I have never written a stack that has 10,000 lines in it in total...
> Date: Thu, 5 Nov 2015 09:04:46 -0800
> Subject: garbage collection run amok again in 7.1.1Rc2?
> From: doch...@gmail
I was under the impression that very long scripts take some time to compile. If
this has been addressed and this was no longer the case, I am very surprised
and curious how they managed that. It would mean that scripts are now indexed
somehow so only the relevant parts of the scripts are recompi
I am seeing the *long*, as in several seconds, delays again when making
changes in long (10k+ line) handlers. A minor edit, and off to la-la land.
Are others being this?
--
Dr. Richard E. Hawkins, Esq.
(702) 508-8462
___
use-livecode mailing list
use-
12 matches
Mail list logo
