> It's a huge 5 seconds by default -- longer than a > program should wait.
> I'll probably go for the next simplest approach: wait > just a few seconds, and if there's not enough response, > don't wait, but don't fail either. It's a dirty hack, > but much simpler than other possibilities. The next simplest and ... WISE approach. "Huge 5 seconds" are ZERO, provided the delay is constant. (I know about what I am talking, I am using a P166 with 32MB and an ATI card with 4MB--an acceptable, functional box still, no kidding.) Much worse and irritating are programs that start in 0 seconds once, in 10 seconds another time, and in 4 a third time. A program that regularly lets you wait 5 seconds, and whose complexity is beyond writing just "hello," is okay. Cheers, /Roy Lanek (West Sumatra) -- SSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS buruk muka cermin dibelah SSSSS . s l a c k w a r e SSSSSS ugly face, the mirror is split [blaming SSSSS +------------ linux SSSSSS the wrong cause or creating a scapegoat] SSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS
