What are possible reasons for memory consumption ...
bonnmike at gmail.com
Sun Jul 8 19:06:14 CEST 2018
Or alternatively, check the pendingmessages and only send if there is not
already a message for the handler in question in queue.
I've had situations (in my case, bad coding) where I thought I was starting
a looping handler once ,but had left a call to that handler elsewhere
accidentally during the re-think process. In those cases, even if it is a
seldom run handler that has the mistake, every time it is called, a new
instance of the loop starts. In my case, (since I have trouble tracking
details as complexity grows beyond a certain point.. Small scale I'm great,
large scale, not so much) I've just made it a habit to always do the
pendingmessage check before sending again. (I have lots of little rules
like this to help me manage my own personal limitations in a consistent
way.. Like always including a way to exit a tight repeat loop during
development at least, to avoid issues with runaways.)
Hmm. I tend to run on about things lately don't I? Feel free to ignore any
On Sun, Jul 8, 2018 at 10:42 AM Douglas Ruisaard via use-livecode <
use-livecode at lists.runrev.com> wrote:
> To help determine if Brian's suggestion is occurring, you could put the
> following line in your "self perpetuating" code (assuming you're not
> running the code on a Mobile device which have no "messsage box") just
> before the "send... in x time ":
> put the pendingmessages
> If you see ANY output, then you've got multiple overlapping messages ...
> again, this assumes you only have ONE "loop" running. Perhaps you can send
> the "offending" section of code for analysis?
More information about the use-livecode