Carl, Right, makes sense, I really use delays sparingly and go for millis() But this was a copy-paste task. and it was only 25ms of delay, so I let it slide. And considering I am probably only using like 10% of computing power I thought I could let it slide. And I could have if it wasn't for you meddling programmers. `,~)
Normally I only use a short delay at the end of the loop if the loop is moving to fast, or for comm purposes. so definitely out of norm for me. I still like the original work around though. I would use it again if in a pinch. Good discussion in any case and now I have a better grasp on Ticker. Makes one of my Dad's best advice quotes ring true: When all else fails, read the instructions ~ Dad Good Stuff, John Vaughters On Tuesday, January 26, 2021, 12:51:13 PM EST, Carl Nobile <[email protected]> wrote: Yeah, delays could mess with interrupts even if they are not in the interrupt itself. Actually what happens is the interrupt messes with the delay. If the interrupt happens in the middle of the delay the delay will be longer than what you set it at. Almost all processors will be running interrupts even if you're not using any. There are other people in the group that have more experience with this than I, so just my two cents. ~Carl _______________________________________________ Triangle, NC Embedded Computing mailing list To post message: [email protected] List info: http://mail.triembed.org/mailman/listinfo/triembed_triembed.org TriEmbed web site: http://TriEmbed.org To unsubscribe, click link and send a blank message: mailto:[email protected]?subject=unsubscribe
