OK, so I didn't read the last line of your post. Until now. :o\
Phil
Phil Davis wrote:
Hi Kevin,
I don't know the answer to your question, but try this:
on thingOne
-- single step in iterative process
-- write to edit control
if moreThingOneNeeded then
send "thingOne" to me in zero seconds
end if
end thingOne
on thingTwo
-- single step in iterative process
-- write to edit control
if moreThingTwoNeeded then
send "thingTwo" to me in zero seconds
end if
end thingTwo
I didn't test it, but I think this will give you the alternating
execution you're looking for.
Phil Davis
N wrote:
I have two functions/handlers like the following code
function ThingOne
repeat forever
--Single step of long process
--Write to edit control
wait for 0 seconds with messages
end repeat
end function
function ThingTwo
--SIngle step another long process
--Write Edit wait for 0 seconds with messages
end function
At this point I click a button invoking ThinOne then the button
invoking ThingTwo. Only 1 of the functions seem to be running why?
Does wait with messages not allow currently executing handlers to
continue until the currently handler exits?
Shouldn't this alternate? If not how do you make them alternate? I am
aware of "send in time" but that is not the manner in which the
specific problem should be solved.
Kevin
_______________________________________________
use-revolution mailing list
[email protected]
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your
subscription preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution
_______________________________________________
use-revolution mailing list
[email protected]
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution
