I have asked this before.

[Phil Davis]

OK, so I didn't read the last line of your post. Until now. :o\

Phil

Phil Davis wrote:
> Hi Kevin,
> 
> I don't know the answer to your question, but try this:
> 
> 
> on thingOne
>   -- single step in iterative process
>   -- write to edit control
>   if moreThingOneNeeded then
>     send "thingOne" to me in zero seconds
>   end if
> end thingOne
> 
> 
> on thingTwo
>   -- single step in iterative process
>   -- write to edit control
>   if moreThingTwoNeeded then
>     send "thingTwo" to me in zero seconds
>   end if
> end thingTwo
> 
> 
> I didn't test it, but I think this will give you the alternating 
> execution you're looking for.
> 
> Phil Davis
> 
> 
> 
> N wrote:
> 
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> I have two functions/handlers like the following code
>>
>> function ThingOne
>>  repeat forever
>>   --Single step of long process
>>   --Write to edit control
>>   wait for 0 seconds with messages
>>  end repeat
>> end function
>> function ThingTwo
>>  --SIngle step another long process
>>  --Write Edit  wait for 0 seconds with messages
>> end function
>> 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?
>>
>> 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.
>>
>> Kevin
> 
> _______________________________________________
> use-revolution mailing list
> use-revolution at lists.runrev.com
> Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your 
> subscription preferences:
> http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution
>