Re: sluggishness of 8.1.1 on send in 0/wait 0 pairs?

2016-10-26 Thread Dr. Hawkins
On Wed, Oct 26, 2016 at 1:36 AM, Peter TB Brett wrote: > > 1, 3, 5, 7, 2, 6, 4 > > This _could_ account for the behaviour that Richard is reporting. I know > that it is fixed in the development branch [1]. At the moment, while I single step through a script, I notice

Re: sluggishness of 8.1.1 on send in 0/wait 0 pairs?

2016-10-26 Thread Bob Sneidar
THAT is news to me. I thot the queue would clear. Good to know. Bob S On Oct 25, 2016, at 22:51 , Monte Goulding > wrote: So if you had two messages in the queue scheduled for exactly the same time and only did a wait 0 with messages then only one

Re: sluggishness of 8.1.1 on send in 0/wait 0 pairs?

2016-10-26 Thread Bob Sneidar
I always use dispatch unless I need to send in time. Bob S On Oct 25, 2016, at 15:31 , Mark Talluto > wrote: On Oct 25, 2016, at 10:18 AM, Richard Gaskin > wrote: Dr.

Re: sluggishness of 8.1.1 on send in 0/wait 0 pairs?

2016-10-26 Thread Peter TB Brett
On 25/10/2016 21:30, Monte Goulding wrote: On 26 Oct. 2016, at 6:55 am, Dr. Hawkins wrote: *unless* there is an opportunity to execute it, such as (exclusively?) "Wait with messages", at which point the message due is supposed to be checked. send in time is supposed to

Re: sluggishness of 8.1.1 on send in 0/wait 0 pairs?

2016-10-25 Thread Monte Goulding
> On 26 Oct. 2016, at 3:26 pm, Dr. Hawkins wrote: > > > ON a "wait 0 with messages", does this effectively put the next line in the > queue as the last (first? random?) entry for the current (next?) > millisecond? I think I'll need an interpreter to understand that question

Re: sluggishness of 8.1.1 on send in 0/wait 0 pairs?

2016-10-25 Thread Mark Wieder
On 10/25/2016 05:29 PM, hh wrote: send in -the seconds seconds ? Job has to be done in 1970 ... When I was a young man with curly hair. In that case you don't want "send *in* " What you need is "send *to* " -- Mark Wieder ahsoftw...@gmail.com

Re: sluggishness of 8.1.1 on send in 0/wait 0 pairs?

2016-10-25 Thread Dr. Hawkins
On Tue, Oct 25, 2016 at 5:49 PM, Monte Goulding wrote: > > send “foo” in 0 > —> insert script taking longer than 1 millisecond here > send “bar” in -1 millisecond > > “bar” will be handled after “foo" This leads to the next question. ON a "wait 0 with messages", does this

Re: sluggishness of 8.1.1 on send in 0/wait 0 pairs?

2016-10-25 Thread Monte Goulding
> On 26 Oct. 2016, at 11:29 am, hh wrote: > > send in -the seconds seconds ? > Job has to be done in 1970 ... When I was a young man with curly hair. > > Monte, please build a time machine. ;-) The issue is this: send “foo” in 0 —> insert script taking longer than 1

Re: sluggishness of 8.1.1 on send in 0/wait 0 pairs?

2016-10-25 Thread hh
send in -the seconds seconds ? Job has to be done in 1970 ... When I was a young man with curly hair. Monte, please build a time machine. ___ use-livecode mailing list use-livecode@lists.runrev.com Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and

Re: sluggishness of 8.1.1 on send in 0/wait 0 pairs?

2016-10-25 Thread Monte Goulding
> On 26 Oct. 2016, at 11:13 am, hh wrote: > > [1] There is also Jacque's recent(?) info: send may also be called with a > negative argument in order to overtake the current queue: >send doIt to stack worker in -1 millisecs Actually this does not guarantee that the message

Re: sluggishness of 8.1.1 on send in 0/wait 0 pairs?

2016-10-25 Thread hh
... [3] Or try to use send doIt to stack worker in 0 millisecs this is 16 times faster than 0 ticks ;-) ___ use-livecode mailing list use-livecode@lists.runrev.com Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription

Re: sluggishness of 8.1.1 on send in 0/wait 0 pairs?

2016-10-25 Thread hh
[1] There is also Jacque's recent(?) info: send may also be called with a negative argument in order to overtake the current queue: send doIt to stack worker in -1 millisecs [2] Or try to use "call" that has one big advantage: "call" preserves the target, not "send", not "dispatch" see

Re: sluggishness of 8.1.1 on send in 0/wait 0 pairs?

2016-10-25 Thread Dr. Hawkins
On Tue, Oct 25, 2016 at 3:31 PM, Mark Talluto wrote: > You might consider using 'dispatch' instead of 'send' if you really want > it to execute the moment that line shows up. I read somewhere the dispatch > is more performant anyways. > > to be clear: I would certainly

Re: sluggishness of 8.1.1 on send in 0/wait 0 pairs?

2016-10-25 Thread Mark Talluto
> On Oct 25, 2016, at 10:18 AM, Richard Gaskin > wrote: > > Dr. Hawkins wrote: > > > I (like I assume many others) have a number of places with blocks like > > > > send doIt to stack worker in 0 > > wait 0 with messages > > doSomethingElse > > > > I'm seeing a

Re: sluggishness of 8.1.1 on send in 0/wait 0 pairs?

2016-10-25 Thread Dr. Hawkins
On Tue, Oct 25, 2016 at 1:30 PM, Monte Goulding wrote: > Send in time has does not guarantee when a message will be sent. It’s ASAP > after the event time. If there is a pending message that should be handled > before the message you sent then it will be handled and then you

Re: sluggishness of 8.1.1 on send in 0/wait 0 pairs?

2016-10-25 Thread Monte Goulding
> On 26 Oct. 2016, at 6:55 am, Dr. Hawkins wrote: > > *unless* there is an opportunity to execute it, such as (exclusively?) > "Wait with messages", at which point the message due is supposed to be > checked. > > send in time is supposed to return a message queue id of the

Re: sluggishness of 8.1.1 on send in 0/wait 0 pairs?

2016-10-25 Thread Dr. Hawkins
On Tue, Oct 25, 2016 at 12:28 PM, mwieder wrote: > That's the way the "send" command works. See the dictionary for details. > > If you "send" a command it's executed immediately, before anything else in > the current handler. > If you "send in time" it's executed *after*

Re: sluggishness of 8.1.1 on send in 0/wait 0 pairs?

2016-10-25 Thread mwieder
That's the way the "send" command works. See the dictionary for details. If you "send" a command it's executed immediately, before anything else in the current handler. If you "send in time" it's executed *after* the current handler finishes. - -- Mark Wieder ahsoftw...@gmail.com --

Re: sluggishness of 8.1.1 on send in 0/wait 0 pairs?

2016-10-25 Thread Dr. Hawkins
On Tue, Oct 25, 2016 at 10:18 AM, Richard Gaskin wrote: > Dr. Hawkins wrote: > > > I (like I assume many others) have a number of places with blocks like > > > > send doIt to stack worker in 0 > > wait 0 with messages > > doSomethingElse > > > > I'm seeing a

Re: sluggishness of 8.1.1 on send in 0/wait 0 pairs?

2016-10-25 Thread Richard Gaskin
Dr. Hawkins wrote: > I (like I assume many others) have a number of places with blocks like > > send doIt to stack worker in 0 > wait 0 with messages > doSomethingElse > > I'm seeing a situation in which the code hits "DoSomethingElse" > before the "doIt" happens. If you want to ensure "doIt"

sluggishness of 8.1.1 on send in 0/wait 0 pairs?

2016-10-24 Thread Dr. Hawkins
I still don't have my finger completely on this one, but watching the sluggish shifting back and forth between tabs on the script editor, I think I'm starting to grasp it. I (like I assume many others) have a number of places with blocks like send doIt to stack worker in 0 wait 0 with messages