Why waiting? - Prowler Productions

  Prowler Productions
  Dink Smallwood Forum
  Why waiting?

profile | register | faq

Author Topic:   Why waiting?

Beuc posted 01-12- 10:37 AM CT (US)
Why are in so many DMODs wait(250); lines after each say_stop() procedures?
I don't think it's better...
Furthermore, when you pass a dialog which you've already read, it quick without wait().
someone2 posted 01-12- 09:08 PM CT (US)
I don't write it because it's quicker that way :). I think the original Dink had the wait(250) between say_stop()'s.
Beuc posted 01-13- 03:24 AM CT (US)
Yeah, but why? ;)
Wyndo posted 01-15- 11:11 AM CT (US)
Becaues it gives the user a chance to let up off their space bar or enter key (or whatever) between messages, and it avoids the inevitable accidental "double-click" that would cause a message to be skiped if the wait were not there.
Beuc posted 01-15- 11:31 AM CT (US)
I'll do some tests with this. Thanks :)

Hop to:

Contact Us | Prowler Productions

Powered by: Ultimate Bulletin Board, Freeware Version 5.10a
Purchase our Licensed Version- which adds many more features!
© Infopop Corporation (formerly Madrona Park, Inc.), 1998 - 2000.

Author	Topic: Why waiting?
Beuc	posted 01-12- 10:37 AM CT (US) Why are in so many DMODs wait(250); lines after each say_stop() procedures? I don't think it's better... Furthermore, when you pass a dialog which you've already read, it quick without wait().
someone2	posted 01-12- 09:08 PM CT (US) I don't write it because it's quicker that way :). I think the original Dink had the wait(250) between say_stop()'s.
Beuc	posted 01-13- 03:24 AM CT (US) Yeah, but why? ;)
Wyndo	posted 01-15- 11:11 AM CT (US) Becaues it gives the user a chance to let up off their space bar or enter key (or whatever) between messages, and it avoids the inevitable accidental "double-click" that would cause a message to be skiped if the wait were not there.
Beuc	posted 01-15- 11:31 AM CT (US) I'll do some tests with this. Thanks :)