Hi All,
would anyone object if I set the DisplayScreen>>#flash: time to 50ms, down from 100ms? I find the 100ms noticeably slow, and I'm getting on in years, so I feel that its unnecessarily slow for many others too. So as I asked, any objections?
_,,,^..^,,,_ best, Eliot
Hi, Eliot.
This is used only in MVC, right? :) Sure, you can reduce the delay, maybe even make a preference for it.
Out of curiosity, can when do you use DisplayScreen >> #flash:? Why is #flash: different from #flash:andWait:? That is, why is there another delay at the end of the method?
Best, Marcel
-- View this message in context: http://forum.world.st/Shortening-flash-time-to-50-ms-tp4942597p4952907.html Sent from the Squeak - Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
On Thu, Jun 29, 2017 at 4:45 AM, marcel.taeumel Marcel.Taeumel@hpi.de wrote:
Hi, Eliot.
This is used only in MVC, right? :) Sure, you can reduce the delay, maybe even make a preference for it.
Thanks.
Out of curiosity, can when do you use DisplayScreen >> #flash:? Why is #flash: different from #flash:andWait:? That is, why is there another delay at the end of the method?
I don't. I see it being used by code around the system. I notice that Morph>>flash is tied to the world's refresh rate (IIUC). Nice.
Best, Marcel
-- View this message in context: http://forum.world.st/ Shortening-flash-time-to-50-ms-tp4942597p4952907.html Sent from the Squeak - Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
squeak-dev@lists.squeakfoundation.org