Tried that yesterday and it throlled the processor and I had to kill the IDE.
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 Fri 09/02, Phil Davis < [EMAIL PROTECTED] > wrote: From: Phil Davis [mailto: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED], use-revolution@lists.runrev.com Date: Fri, 02 Sep 2005 11:00:21 -0700 Subject: Re: I have asked this before. Hi Kevin,<br><br>I don't know the answer to your question, but try this:<br><br><br>on thingOne<br> -- single step in iterative process<br> -- write to edit control<br> if moreThingOneNeeded then<br> send "thingOne" to me in zero seconds<br> end if<br>end thingOne<br><br><br>on thingTwo<br> -- single step in iterative process<br> -- write to edit control<br> if moreThingTwoNeeded then<br> send "thingTwo" to me in zero seconds<br> end if<br>end thingTwo<br><br><br>I didn't test it, but I think this will give you the alternating <br>execution you're looking for.<br><br>Phil Davis<br><br><br><br>N wrote:<br>> <br>> <br>> <br>> <br>> I have two functions/handlers like the following code<br>> <br>> function ThingOne<br>> repeat forever<br>> --Single step of long process<br>> --Write to edit control<br>> wait for 0 seconds with messages<br>> end repeat<br>> end function <br>> <br>> function ThingTwo<br>> --SIngle step another long process<br>> --Write Edit <br>> wait for 0 seconds with messages<br>> end function <br>> <br>> At this point I click a button invoking ThinOne then the button invoking ThingTwo. Only 1 of the functions seem to be running why? Does wait with messages not allow currently executing handlers to continue until the currently handler exits?<br>> <br>> Shouldn't this alternate? If not how do you make them alternate? I am aware of "send in time" but that is not the manner in which the specific problem should be solved. <br>> <br>> <br>> Kevin<br> _______________________________________________ Join Excite! - http://www.excite.com The most personalized portal on the Web! _______________________________________________ use-revolution mailing list use-revolution@lists.runrev.com Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription preferences: http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution
