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 mwie...@ahsoftware.net _______________________________________________ use-livecode mailing list use-livecode@lists.runrev.com Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription preferences: http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode
