Finally found one.

[Mark Wieder]

Craig-

> I thought of that, but believed that the "send in time", where I even
increased the time value to, say, 100 ticks, would be more than enough to allow
the engine to "rest".

It's not a matter of giving the engine time to "rest". See below.

> I see clearly what "wait with messages" does.

No, I do think you're missing the point. It's the "with messages" part that's
important, not the "wait" part. It doesn't matter how long you wait - if you
omit the messages part the engine still won't be looking for other events. "With
messages" says "look around and see what other messages may have been triggered
before continuing". As in, someone might have clicked a button. Or a message may
have come in from another control. Or another timer has expired. Or...

> But I am trying to avoid "wait" in general

Waiting for 0 milliseconds is essentially not waiting. It just gives us
something to tack the "with messages" part onto. So don't be afraid of waiting
for no time. The overhead of checking for messages will take up more time than
the wait statement and you won't even notice it.

-- 
 Mark Wieder
 mwieder at ahsoftware.net