Thanks Geoff, I like the concept of time based updated rather than based on number of records processed. Pete
On Fri, Mar 30, 2012 at 11:43 PM, Geoff Canyon <gcan...@gmail.com> wrote: > I'll throw my 2 cents in here as well -- I've found that it doesn't impact > performance significantly to check ticks() each time through the loop. So > instead of a fixed number of iterations, which can lead to a jumpy progress > bar or excessive updates if what you're doing in the loop varies much, I do > this: > > if ticks() > T then > --update the progress bar > put ticks() + 10 into T -- your choice how smooth you want it > end if > > Sent from my iPad > > On Mar 29, 2012, at 6:20 PM, Scott Rossi <sc...@tactilemedia.com> wrote: > > > Use a counter to increment progress > > every 2nd, 5th, 10th loop (whatever makes sense), so updating progress > has a > > lower impact on the repeat loop. > > _______________________________________________ > 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 > > -- Pete Molly's Revenge <http://www.mollysrevenge.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
