I have asked this before.

[N]

To be more specific wich ever event/handler is started last remains executing and the other is non-functional.  If I halt the running handler the one started earlier will continue!  I thought the whole point of wait with messages was to allow other events/handlers to run. Is there another way to do this?






-==-=-=-=-=-=-==-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-==-=-=-=-=-=-
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, Klaus Major < klaus at major-k.de > wrote:
From: Klaus Major [mailto: klaus at major-k.de]
To: nnoydb at excite.com, use-revolution at lists.runrev.com
Date: Fri, 2 Sep 2005 16:54:49 +0200
Subject: Re: I have asked this before.

Hi Kevin,<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  <br>> invoking ThingTwo.  Only 1 of the functions seem to be running  <br>> why?  Does wait with messages not allow currently executing  <br>> handlers to continue until the currently handler exits?<br>><br>> Shouldn't this alternate? If not how do you make them alternate? I  <br>> am aware of "send in time" but that is not the manner in which the  <br>> specific problem should be solved.<br><br>i have no idea, but i think that using a function for this might be  <br>the wrong way...?<br><br>Did you 
try this as handler?<br><br>on ThingOne<br>...<br>...<br>end ThingOne<br><br>A finction is supposed to return some value(s), so maybe the handler  <br>that is calling<br>this function might have to wait until doomsday ;-)<br><br>> Kevin<br><br>Regards<br><br>Klaus Major<br>klaus at major-k.de<br>http://www.major-k.de<br><br>

_______________________________________________
Join Excite! - http://www.excite.com
The most personalized portal on the Web!