Thanks, I do believe now that my code is not working in the correct manner. Honestly, I would prefer it worked like the VB event system were you could just doEvents to yeild the tasker/system (KISS).
I will rewrite the offending routines! Kevin -==-=-=-=-=-=-==-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-==-=-=-=-=-=- Disclaimer: Any resemblance between the above views and those of my employer, my terminal, or the view out my window are purely coincidental. Any resemblance between the above and my own views is non-deterministic. The question of the existence of views in the absence of anyone to hold them is left as an exercise for the reader. The question of the existence of the reader is left as an exercise for the second god coefficient. (A discussion of non-orthogonal, non-integral polytheism is beyond the scope of this article.) --- On Wed 08/11, Dar Scott < [EMAIL PROTECTED] > wrote: From: Dar Scott [mailto: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Wed, 11 Aug 2004 10:29:34 -0600 Subject: Re: wait with messages <br>On Aug 11, 2004, at 9:55 AM, Dar Scott wrote:<br><br>>> Without polling what is the best way to wait (while messages continue <br>>> processing) for a viriable state to change? Since wait with messages <br>>> is presenting several anomalies I cannot explain.<br>><br>> One way would be to use a custom command (hander) to set the variable. <br>> It can 'send ... in 0'. A possible problem is that it might queue up <br>> several messages before execution completes and only one is needed.<br>><br>> Another way is to call a routine to check what needs to be done at the <br>> end of routines and it can do the sends.<br><br>By the way, polling may not be so bad if you don't need a fast <br>response. Use a cycle like one of the flashers in the primer. Maybe <br>you can poll every 100 or 200 ms or even faster. Look at the cpu meter <br>if you are concerned.<br><br>In the case of something like a FIFO, you might give the fifo a message <br>to send whenever it becomes empty and a message to send every time it <br>become nonempty. If you put a cycle in that to check the state and <br>send the message, that is mostly a fallback and would not affect the <br>normal performance.<br><br>Dar Scott<br><br>_______________________________________________<br>use-revolution mailing list<br>[EMAIL PROTECTED]<br>http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution<br> _______________________________________________ Join Excite! - http://www.excite.com The most personalized portal on the Web! _______________________________________________ use-revolution mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution
