like pass, but without ending the handler
J. Landman Gay
jacque at hyperactivesw.com
Thu Mar 1 10:33:15 CST 2007
Dick Kriesel wrote:
> On 2/28/07 3:27 PM, "J. Landman Gay" <jacque at hyperactivesw.com> wrote:
>> The important part is the "wait <time> with messages", which allows user
>> input to occur simultaneously. That will allow you to put in a "stop"
>> button. But while "wait with messages" does allow the messages to
>> happen, it does not allow them to be acted on. They will pile up in a
>> queue until the loop is exited. Some of them, anyway. I think some were
>> just lost.
> Jacque, could you please clarify this? What's the difference between
> happening and being acted on? If Rev loses messages, I'd like to
> understand, so I don't write code that's likely to fail and that cannot be
I've partly misstated this and you probably don't have anything to worry
about. The script I wrote was from quite a while ago, so I had
misremembered what was in there. In the example I gave, though, checking
for "the mouseclick" does remove all mouse-related messages for that
click from the queue; you get no mousedown, mousestilldown, mouseup.
Just the act of checking for a mouseclick clears the message queue of
that mouseclick's related events.
The difference between a message happening (I should have said, "being
sent") and being acted on is probably simpler than my awkward wording
implied. When a user generates an action, the engine sends a series of
messages about that action (unless a script has set lockmessages to
true.) If there are handlers in the stack that trap and act on those
messages, the handlers will be executed ("acted on".)
I just did a test of what I wrote and I was wrong about messages piling
up in the queue when "wait with messages" is in the loop; they execute
fine as Chipp found out. I went back and looked at my original script
and saw that in the repeat loop I did *not* "wait with messages" after
all. In a loop without the "wait with messages" call, event messages do
pile up and remain unexecuted. But the "with messages" line prevents
that from happening and it does act very much like multi-threading.
I'm not sure I've made things any clearer. ;)
Jacqueline Landman Gay | jacque at hyperactivesw.com
HyperActive Software | http://www.hyperactivesw.com
More information about the use-livecode