Re: perform ... afterDelay?
Re: perform ... afterDelay?
- Subject: Re: perform ... afterDelay?
- From: John Stiles <email@hidden>
- Date: Wed, 4 Jan 2006 13:57:49 -0800
On Jan 4, 2006, at 12:28 PM, goessly wrote:
You don't really want to wait 0.04 seconds, you want to have a
method called 25 times per second.
Basically yes, but I would have expected the scheduler to assign
the resulting downtimes to other tasks? If this is not the case, an
NSTimer would indeed be better...
But since the loop in question breaks after one second and isn't
called to many times... maybe there's no harm in "giving it time"?
Or would this be to inefficient?
Other tasks will receive time… but your task won't.
So if the user, say, clicks a menu in the menu bar, nothing will happen.
If it's only going to be for 1 second, this isn't a crisis or
anything, but it's still better UI to use an NSTimer for this sort of
thing.
_______________________________________________
Do not post admin requests to the list. They will be ignored.
Cocoa-dev mailing list (email@hidden)
Help/Unsubscribe/Update your Subscription:
This email sent to email@hidden