Should "dispatch" be extended for timers?

[Peter Haworth]

Sounds like a great idea to me.  I seem to remember that one of
dispatch/send is blocking and the other isn't. Could that be a possible
reason for the lack of "in" with dispatch?

Pete
lcSQL Software
On Aug 26, 2014 7:09 PM, "Richard Gaskin" <ambassador at fourthworld.com>
wrote:

> I love "dispatch", and the more I use it the more I find "send" murky.
>
> With "dispatch" params seem more natural to me:
>
>    dispatch "somecommand" to tSomeObj with tArg2, tArg2
>
> But with "send" it's less clear how params are handled - here's an example
> from the forums today:
>
>   send clearVideo LayerAlpha, baseLayer, LayerGraphic, \
>      LayerAudio to me in 700 milliseconds
>
> Seems like a good guess as to how it should be used, but of course the
> compiler complains.
>
> So given that "dispatch" is also faster, why not use it for everything,
> extending it with "in" to allow timers:
>
>    dispatch "somecommand" to tSomeObj with tArg2, tArg2 in 2 secs
>
> Is there some reason I've overlooked as to why "send" allows timers but
> "dispatch" doesn't?
>
> --
>  Richard Gaskin
>  Fourth World Systems
>  Software Design and Development for the Desktop, Mobile, and the Web
>  ____________________________________________________________________
>  Ambassador at FourthWorld.com                http://www.FourthWorld.com
>
> _______________________________________________
> use-livecode mailing list
> use-livecode at lists.runrev.com
> Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your
> subscription preferences:
> http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode
>