Should "dispatch" be extended for timers?

Richard Gaskin ambassador at fourthworld.com
Fri Aug 29 18:19:36 CEST 2014


Trevor wrote:

> I don't know if there is a reason dispatch doesn't have timers, but what if
> "send" was just updated to support "with"? If "with" was present then we
> could do this:
>
> send "someCommand" to someObject with param1, param2 in 10 milliseconds
>
> The thing is, dispatch is useful if A) you want to know if the command was
> handled, B) you want to send a message and you don't care if it is handled
> (the engine doesn't report an error if "someCommand" isn't defined
> anywhere), or C) you want to call a command/function outside of the message
> path. I see this as a much improved version of the 'send "someCommand"'
> form of 'send'.
>
> Given how dispatch works, I see 'send is' as being what you use if you want
> to execute some code after the current event loop has finished executing.
> The downside is that the syntax stinks. But if the syntax were updated so
> that it supported the same form as dispatch then I think it would be great.
> I imagine the engine could also improve the speed to be on par with
> dispatch as the engine would know that "someCommand" wouldn't contain any
> variables that had to be processed (e.g. "someCommand param1, param2").

Good thoughts - I've revised my original request accordingly:

<http://quality.runrev.com/show_bug.cgi?id=13287>


-- 
  Richard Gaskin
  Fourth World Systems
  Software Design and Development for the Desktop, Mobile, and the Web
  ____________________________________________________________________
  Ambassador at FourthWorld.com                http://www.FourthWorld.com



More information about the use-livecode mailing list