What are possible reasons for memory consumption ...

[Mike Bonner]

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
extraneous blab.

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?
>
>
>