Howdy,
Wouldn't threads and state checking be a little less cumbersome? Just a
thought.
Good luck,
Fargo
James McCarthy wrote:
Sure, and I see I have made a mistake in my first description .. I
meant to say 'mode' not 'period'
Timer1
Timer2.Mode = 0
Doing some code now which may be longer than the period of 2,
but it'll just have to wait
Timer2.Mode = 2
Timer2
Timer1.Mode = 0
Doing some code now which may be longer than the period of 1,
but it'll just have to wait
Timer1.Mode = 2
How long it gets tied up in each timer isn't so important, but there
may be as many as 15+
and the distribution of the time amongst them (in other words the
ratio of their periods)
is what matters to me, that and to ensure that only ever one fires at
a time. Oh actually
I see I haven't quite thought this through .. apologies - I don't want
any timer to fire
(or re-fire) while one of them is busy.
Hrm Ok I'll research the archives and/or forums ahead of time before
posting in future !
James
_______________________________________________
Unsubscribe or switch delivery mode:
<http://www.realsoftware.com/support/listmanager/>
Search the archives of this list here:
<http://support.realsoftware.com/listarchives/lists.html>
