🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <9151@rouge.usl.edu> wakres01@pa.usl.edu (1712 Stelly John B) writes:
>I don't want to sound like, an idiot, but I've never messed with INTUITICKS
>timing before, and I'm trying to wait an arbitrary amount of time based on
>an INTUITICKS message received by my window. At any rate, I've declared, and
>opened a window like this:

Intuiticks are useful as a "kicker" for a program that doesn't want to
be MT unfriendly. Basically they will kick you every so often (approx
10 times a second) to pop you out of the Wait() that you are in so that
you can update counters, refresh things, check for various conditions
that would not result in a signal. They are lousy for timing things since
they don't "stack" (on purpose). That means that if you get an IntuiTick,
after .1 seconds another one will be queued for your message port but
after .2 seconds another one will _not_ be queued if the previous one
is still in your message port queue. This is good because it prevents
unconstrained consumption of memory resources. If you want to keep 
track of the amount of time that has passed, you can cache the 
Seconds, and Micros value from the IntuiMessages you see and compare
that to the current time of day. This lets you know how "stale" an
Intuimessage is and if you are in a real time situation you can 
decide to ignore messages that happened a while ago. 


--
--Chuck McManis						    Sun Microsystems
uucp: {anywhere}!sun!cmcmanis   BIX: <none>   Internet: cmcmanis@Eng.Sun.COM
These opinions are my own and no one elses, but you knew that didn't you.
"I tell you this parrot is bleeding deceased!"