Except we don't know how intensive the ck handler is.
On 4/13/14, 4:28 PM, Alex Tweedly wrote:
It's good to get the computer to do any hard work for us, but we can
still do some mental arithmetic ....
1026 - 542 gives just under 500ms, and should be accurate.
In fact, you could (if you were in the mood) argue that this method is
more accurate, since it doesn't carry an overhead for resetting strt :-)
-- Alex.
On 13/04/2014 19:58, J. Landman Gay wrote:
On 4/13/14, 11:42 AM, Dr. Hawkins wrote:
While looking for the holdup in some code,
put the milliseconds -strt into stp[4]
set the thumbpos of sb "dnaScroll" to chrPos
put the milliseconds -strt into stp[5]
ck "elapsed: " && stp[0] && stp[0] && stp[1] && stp[2] && stp[3] &&
stp[4] &&stp[5]
The output is
elapsed: 0 0 38 38 38 542 1026
That's 500 ms, repeatable, for that single line of code setting a
thumbpos.
The handler is counting cumulative milliseconds; step 5 is counting
everything that executed in steps 1 through 5, including the logging
statement. You'll get a more accurate time if you reinitialize strt to
zero before setting each thumbpos.
_______________________________________________
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
--
Jacqueline Landman Gay | jac...@hyperactivesw.com
HyperActive Software | http://www.hyperactivesw.com
_______________________________________________
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
