question about Timers @ stuff............

Discussion in 'Javascript' started by rebeccatre@gmail.com, May 17, 2007.

  1. Guest

    hi can Variant archiving setTimout('.. capability be done without
    using it? :)
    , May 17, 2007
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Guest

    > Could you try reposting that in some form of comprehensible English?

    archiving = achieving sooory
    , May 17, 2007
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Guest

    > Your doesn't question sense still make.

    I've got a super intergalactic problem, a very complex interface that
    uses javascript setTimer to execute functions with 1, 5 or 10 second
    delays.... without get into all the political issues, i just need a
    simple, if not ad-hoc replacement for it, that gives me finite
    control, to set delays that lead to running other functions(); can
    this be done without messing up timing or CPU% overload? :) thank you
    for your braintime
    , May 17, 2007
    #3
  4. Guest

    I've got a super intergalactic problem, a very complex interface that
    uses javascript setTimer to execute functions with 1, 5 or 10 second
    delays.... without get into all the political issues, i just need a
    simple, if not ad-hoc replacement for it, that gives me finite
    control, to set delays that lead to running other functions(); can
    this be done without messing up timing or CPU% overload? :) thank you
    for your braintime

    ----------------
    MORE
    ----------------

    btw, its a low-end ie browser interface, that has a quirk that render
    use of javascript setTimer inoperable, very specifically, (everything
    else Javascript seems to be ok), ..... changing aspects of what I have
    to work in is never going to happen, so I just need something that can
    act like setTimer for about a dozen places I need to change the
    "engine" out, so to speak i hope i am clearer about my problem and
    can help me please with best solution!!
    , May 17, 2007
    #4
  5. Lee Guest

    said:
    >
    >
    >
    >I've got a super intergalactic problem, a very complex interface that
    >uses javascript setTimer to execute functions with 1, 5 or 10 second
    >delays.... without get into all the political issues, i just need a
    >simple, if not ad-hoc replacement for it, that gives me finite
    >control, to set delays that lead to running other functions(); can
    >this be done without messing up timing or CPU% overload? :) thank you
    >for your braintime
    >
    >----------------
    >MORE
    >----------------
    >
    >btw, its a low-end ie browser interface, that has a quirk that render
    >use of javascript setTimer inoperable, very specifically, (everything
    >else Javascript seems to be ok), ..... changing aspects of what I have
    >to work in is never going to happen, so I just need something that can
    >act like setTimer for about a dozen places I need to change the
    >"engine" out, so to speak i hope i am clearer about my problem and
    >can help me please with best solution!!


    The best solution is to use setTimeout or setInterval.

    99.4% of people who insist that they can't use them for their
    purposes turn out to not know what they're talking about.

    Unfortunately for you, that puts the burden on you to convince
    us that you really have a quirk that makes them unusable.


    --
    Lee, May 17, 2007
    #5
  6. Guest

    On May 17, 5:27 pm, Lee <> wrote:
    > said:
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    > >I've got a super intergalactic problem, a very complex interface that
    > >uses javascript setTimer to execute functions with 1, 5 or 10 second
    > >delays.... without get into all the political issues, i just need a
    > >simple, if not ad-hoc replacement for it, that gives me finite
    > >control, to set delays that lead to running other functions(); can
    > >this be done without messing up timing or CPU% overload? :) thank you
    > >for your braintime

    >
    > >----------------
    > >MORE
    > >----------------

    >
    > >btw, its a low-end ie browser interface, that has a quirk that render
    > >use of javascript setTimer inoperable, very specifically, (everything
    > >else Javascript seems to be ok), ..... changing aspects of what I have
    > >to work in is never going to happen, so I just need something that can
    > >act like setTimer for about a dozen places I need to change the
    > >"engine" out, so to speak i hope i am clearer about my problem and
    > >can help me please with best solution!!

    >
    > The best solution is to use setTimeout or setInterval.
    >
    > 99.4% of people who insist that they can't use them for their
    > purposes turn out to not know what they're talking about.
    >
    > Unfortunately for you, that puts the burden on you to convince
    > us that you really have a quirk that makes them unusable.
    >
    > --


    Its a fixed group of people, not public, and I am not in a political
    position in my job to change the fact setTimeout does not work,
    therefore, evidence non-withstanding, I need to find a way as I
    articulated before to ..... ?
    , May 18, 2007
    #6
  7. Guest

    On May 17, 6:22 pm, wrote:
    > On May 17, 5:27 pm, Lee <> wrote:
    >
    >
    >
    > > said:

    >
    > > >I've got a super intergalactic problem, a very complex interface that
    > > >uses javascript setTimer to execute functions with 1, 5 or 10 second
    > > >delays.... without get into all the political issues, i just need a
    > > >simple, if not ad-hoc replacement for it, that gives me finite
    > > >control, to set delays that lead to running other functions(); can
    > > >this be done without messing up timing or CPU% overload? :) thank you
    > > >for your braintime

    >
    > > >----------------
    > > >MORE
    > > >----------------

    >
    > > >btw, its a low-end ie browser interface, that has a quirk that render
    > > >use of javascript setTimer inoperable, very specifically, (everything
    > > >else Javascript seems to be ok), ..... changing aspects of what I have
    > > >to work in is never going to happen, so I just need something that can
    > > >act like setTimer for about a dozen places I need to change the
    > > >"engine" out, so to speak i hope i am clearer about my problem and
    > > >can help me please with best solution!!

    >
    > > The best solution is to use setTimeout or setInterval.

    >
    > > 99.4% of people who insist that they can't use them for their
    > > purposes turn out to not know what they're talking about.

    >
    > > Unfortunately for you, that puts the burden on you to convince
    > > us that you really have a quirk that makes them unusable.

    >
    > > --

    >
    > Its a fixed group of people, not public, and I am not in a political
    > position in my job to change the fact setTimeout does not work,
    > therefore, evidence non-withstanding, I need to find a way as I
    > articulated before to ..... ?


    BTW, I don't know where 99.4 % comes from, but technically are you
    able to write something like this, or just conjuring up?
    , May 18, 2007
    #7
  8. Lee Guest

    said:
    >
    >On May 17, 6:22 pm, wrote:
    >> On May 17, 5:27 pm, Lee <> wrote:
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >> > said:

    >>
    >> > >I've got a super intergalactic problem, a very complex interface that
    >> > >uses javascript setTimer to execute functions with 1, 5 or 10 second
    >> > >delays.... without get into all the political issues, i just need a
    >> > >simple, if not ad-hoc replacement for it, that gives me finite
    >> > >control, to set delays that lead to running other functions(); can
    >> > >this be done without messing up timing or CPU% overload? :) thank you
    >> > >for your braintime

    >>
    >> > >----------------
    >> > >MORE
    >> > >----------------

    >>
    >> > >btw, its a low-end ie browser interface, that has a quirk that render
    >> > >use of javascript setTimer inoperable, very specifically, (everything
    >> > >else Javascript seems to be ok), ..... changing aspects of what I have
    >> > >to work in is never going to happen, so I just need something that can
    >> > >act like setTimer for about a dozen places I need to change the
    >> > >"engine" out, so to speak i hope i am clearer about my problem and
    >> > >can help me please with best solution!!

    >>
    >> > The best solution is to use setTimeout or setInterval.

    >>
    >> > 99.4% of people who insist that they can't use them for their
    >> > purposes turn out to not know what they're talking about.

    >>
    >> > Unfortunately for you, that puts the burden on you to convince
    >> > us that you really have a quirk that makes them unusable.

    >>
    >> > --

    >>
    >> Its a fixed group of people, not public, and I am not in a political
    >> position in my job to change the fact setTimeout does not work,
    >> therefore, evidence non-withstanding, I need to find a way as I
    >> articulated before to ..... ?

    >
    >BTW, I don't know where 99.4 % comes from, but technically are you
    >able to write something like this, or just conjuring up?


    I was being generous. In my experience, I believe it's 100%.
    In other words, it's very nearly certain that you can do what
    you need with setTimeout(), but don't know how.


    --
    Lee, May 18, 2007
    #8
  9. Guest


    > I was being generous. In my experience, I believe it's 100%.
    > In other words, it's very nearly certain that you can do what
    > you need with setTimeout(), but don't know how.
    >
    > --


    Sorry Lee, you are, and for clarification, I cannot run/execute
    setTimeout(), in a real pure technical sense, IE just ignores it.....
    it might be a security issue, but I work in a real integrated legacy
    environment, and really this is a particularly minor thing affecting
    about half dozen problem areas in some new code I am integrating that
    uses setTimeout().

    <script>

    var hold_timer=5000;milliseconds

    do (pause in a 5 sec loop based on hold_timer) {

    then runthis();

    }

    I know it is asinine , but for me, in a real special case it will be
    immensely helpful.

    Have a very pretty day.
    </script>
    , May 18, 2007
    #9
  10. Lee Guest

    said:
    >
    >
    >> I was being generous. In my experience, I believe it's 100%.
    >> In other words, it's very nearly certain that you can do what
    >> you need with setTimeout(), but don't know how.
    >>
    >> --

    >
    >Sorry Lee, you are, and for clarification, I cannot run/execute
    >setTimeout(), in a real pure technical sense, IE just ignores it.....
    >it might be a security issue, but I work in a real integrated legacy
    >environment, and really this is a particularly minor thing affecting
    >about half dozen problem areas in some new code I am integrating that
    >uses setTimeout().
    >
    ><script>
    >
    >var hold_timer=5000;milliseconds
    >
    >do (pause in a 5 sec loop based on hold_timer) {
    >
    >then runthis();
    >
    >}
    >
    >I know it is asinine , but for me, in a real special case it will be
    >immensely helpful.
    >
    >Have a very pretty day.
    ></script>


    The most common mistake in using setTimeout() makes it appear
    that it is being ignored. What happens when you try this:

    <html>
    <body>
    <script type="text/javascript">
    setTimeout("alert('hi')",3000);
    </script>
    </body>
    </html>


    --
    Lee, May 18, 2007
    #10
  11. RobG Guest

    On May 18, 9:47 am, wrote:
    > > I was being generous. In my experience, I believe it's 100%.
    > > In other words, it's very nearly certain that you can do what
    > > you need with setTimeout(), but don't know how.

    >
    > > --

    >
    > Sorry Lee, you are, and for clarification, I cannot run/execute
    > setTimeout(), in a real pure technical sense, IE just ignores it.....
    > it might be a security issue, but I work in a real integrated legacy
    > environment, and really this is a particularly minor thing affecting
    > about half dozen problem areas in some new code I am integrating that
    > uses setTimeout().


    Your users must have very old versions of IE. According to a Richard
    Cornford post (link below) version 4 doesn't support function
    references, it wants a string.

    There is an interesting thread regarding it titled "small function
    doesnt work in IE", link below. Richard Cornford's answer is copied
    below my signature, check for auto-wrapping (though I think Richard
    was pretty thorough with manually wrapping it).

    <URL:
    http://groups.google.com.au/group/c...Timeout not supported&rnum=1#3732dff72df262c0
    >



    > <script>
    >
    > var hold_timer=5000;milliseconds
    >
    > do (pause in a 5 sec loop based on hold_timer) {


    Javascript doesn't have a pause function. You must use either
    setTimeout or setInterval.


    --
    Rob

    Erwin Moller wrote in message

    <3ebbb857$0$49100$4all.nl>...
    <snip>

    >..., it is solved now I guess.


    Hopefully, but your proposed solution used the javascript pseudo
    protocol which is not something that the regulars on this group ever
    recommend (with the possible exception of Lee's pop-up window timing
    solution application of it). The group's FAQ (section 4.24) advises
    against its use in general terms and DU recently proposed that the FAQ
    entry's wording should be modified to go provide some explanation of
    the
    many undesirable and often browser type, versions and/or operating
    system dependent side effects of its use.

    One of its (many) problems is that to the browser it represents
    navigation, putting the current page into a waiting state in which the
    browser stops performing resource hungry tasks. The most obvious
    manifestation of which is that animated GIFs stop playing, but other
    facilities also disappear with its first invocation.

    Mac IE 5 suffers really badly from side effects of the use of the
    javascript pseudo protocol, but it seems to have some undesirable
    effects on every browser.

    <snip>

    >I use Konquerer 3.0.3-14, so I can test it if you want.


    >But.... I always pass a string (with a function)
    >to the setTimeout....


    The string argument versions is more widely supported but most of the
    modern browsers will accept function references as the first argument.
    The string argument version must invoke the eval function in order to
    execute the code in the string, which would be slower than invoking a
    function by reference. Also, Avant Go and possibly other small,
    embedded
    browsers do not have the resources to implement the eval function and
    so
    they cannot use the string argument version. I don't know whether they
    support the function reference version or just don't implement a
    setTimeout function at all (it is extremely hard to get documentation
    on
    most embedded browsers).

    >I do not know how to create a reference to a function.


    Given a function:-

    function myFunction(){
    ...

    }

    - the identifier - myFunction - is a function reference. That is, it
    is
    a property of the global object that holds a reference to the function
    object that was created when the function definition above was
    interpreted.

    When calling the function as - myFunciton(); - the brackets '()' might
    best be viewed as an operator (a function execution operator) that
    operates on the function referred to by the value in the property -
    myFunction - . So, if you can append '()' (possibly with arguments) to
    an identifier and execute a function, then that identifier _is_ a
    reference to a function (a function object in JavaScript).

    As the properties that refer to functions contain references to
    function
    objects the references can be copied:-

    var copyOfFuncRef = myFunciton;

    - leaves both properties - myFunction - and - copyOfFuncRef - holding
    references to the same function object. And that function object can
    now
    be called as - copyOfFuncRef() - .

    >But if you post a sample I'll be happy to test it for you.


    The reason for my interest is that I am aiming at maximum efficiency
    (the function reference version) and maximum compatibility (fall-back
    to
    the string argument version if that is all that is available) and I
    want
    to do this without having to go through a battery of tests like the
    ones
    I will post below.

    I have noticed that if IE 4 or Opera 5 are passed a function reference
    as the first argument to setTimeout (which they do not support) they
    type convert it into a string. To do the type conversion they call the
    function's toString method. toString is defined on the
    Function.prototype but if the function object in question is provided
    with its own toString method it will override the method on the
    prototype.

    My plan is to provide any functions that are passed as references to
    setTimeout with toString methods that will return a string that would
    call the function anyway. All of the (20 odd) browsers/versions that I
    have accept the function reference argument except IE 4 an Opera 5 and
    those two happily type-convert the function reference to a string
    using
    its toString method.

    I have not been able to test with Konquerer 3. If it accepts function
    reference arguments my plan can go ahead, if it will type-convert the
    reference with the function's toString method I am still in business.
    If
    it only accepts string arguments and will not type convert a function
    reference then I will have to adopt testing and code branching
    strategy
    instead (much more code).

    It may seem wasteful to provide any function that is to be used with
    setTimeout with an additional toString method but that can be done for
    just one setTimeout-setting function as I described in the thread with
    the subject 'closures, what are they good for?'.

    The following HTML should test setTimout and setInterval and alert the
    results about half a second after the onload event. The alert should
    say
    if each function supports function reference arguments, string
    arguments
    and, if only string arguments, whether Konquerer is willing to type
    convert function references into strings.

    (sorry it is not shorter but I may as well find out once and for all.
    I
    should have handled the line wrapping (at 72 characters) so that the
    page can just be cut-n-pasted from your newsreader.)

    <html>
    <head>
    <title>setTimeout tests</title>
    <script type="text/javascript">
    var setTmExists = (typeof window.setTimeout != 'undefined');
    var setInExists = (typeof window.setInterval != 'undefined');
    var setTmString = false;
    var setTmString2 = false;
    var setTmFunc = false;
    var setInString = false;
    var setInString2 = false;
    var setInFunc = false;
    var testTimer,testTimer2;

    function testSetTm(){
    setTmFunc = true;
    setTimeout('setTmString = true;', 1);
    }

    testSetTm.toString = function(){
    return 'setTmString = true;';

    }

    function testSetIn(){
    clearInterval(testTimer);
    setInFunc = true;
    testTimer = setInterval(
    'setInString = true;clearInterval(testTimer);', 1);
    }

    testSetIn.toString = function(){
    return 'setInString = true;clearInterval(testTimer);';

    }

    if(setTmExists){
    setTimeout('setTmString2 = true;', 1);
    setTimeout(testSetTm, 1);
    }

    if(setInExists){
    testTimer2 = setInterval(
    'setInString2 = true;clearInterval(testTimer2);', 1);
    testTimer = setInterval(testSetIn, 1);

    }

    function checkTest(){
    var st = 'The window.setTimeout function '+
    (setTmExists?'exists':'does not exist')+'\n';
    if(setTmExists){
    st += '\tstring arguments are '+
    (setTmString?'':'not ')+'supported\n\tfunction arguments are '+
    ((setTmFunc||setTmString2)?'':'not ')+'supported\n';
    if((!setTmFunc)&&(!setTmString)&&(setTmString2)){
    st +=
    '\tfunction arguments are not type-converted by setTimeout\n';
    }
    }
    st += '\nThe window.setInterval function '+
    (setInExists?'exists':'does not exist')+'\n';
    if(setInExists){
    st += '\tstring arguments are '+
    (setInString?'':'not ')+'supported\n\tfunction arguments are '+
    ((setInFunc||setInString2)?'':'not ')+'supported\n';
    if((!setInFunc)&&(!setInString)&&(setInString2)){
    st +=
    '\tfunction arguments are not type-converted by setInterval\n';
    }
    }
    alert(st);
    }

    checkTest.toString = function(){
    return 'checkTest();';
    }

    </script>
    </head>
    <body onload="setTimeout('checkTest()', 400);">
    <p>setTimeout tests.
    </p>
    </body>
    </html>

    Thanks,

    Richard.
    RobG, May 18, 2007
    #11
  12. Guest

    <sniiiipporinie>

    None of these thoughtful examples worked, mainly because they use
    setTimeout to achieve delay. Can some other weird out of box thinking
    achieve reliable delay/then do ()function step?

    Thank you a million ways.
    , May 18, 2007
    #12
  13. -Lost Guest

    wrote:
    > <sniiiipporinie>
    >
    > None of these thoughtful examples worked, mainly because they use
    > setTimeout to achieve delay. Can some other weird out of box thinking
    > achieve reliable delay/then do ()function step?


    What version of Internet Explorer are you using?

    --
    -Lost
    Remove the extra words to reply by e-mail. Don't e-mail me. I am
    kidding. No I am not.
    -Lost, May 18, 2007
    #13
  14. Guest

    On May 17, 8:59 pm, -Lost <> wrote:
    > wrote:
    > > <sniiiipporinie>

    >
    > > None of these thoughtful examples worked, mainly because they use
    > > setTimeout to achieve delay. Can some other weird out of box thinking
    > > achieve reliable delay/then do ()function step?

    >
    > What version of Internet Explorer are you using?
    >
    > --
    > -Lost
    > Remove the extra words to reply by e-mail. Don't e-mail me. I am
    > kidding. No I am not.


    Under fixed 6.0 basic js standards minimum thx!!
    , May 18, 2007
    #14
  15. -Lost Guest

    wrote:
    > On May 17, 8:59 pm, -Lost <> wrote:
    >> wrote:
    >>> <sniiiipporinie>
    >>> None of these thoughtful examples worked, mainly because they use
    >>> setTimeout to achieve delay. Can some other weird out of box thinking
    >>> achieve reliable delay/then do ()function step?

    >> What version of Internet Explorer are you using?
    >>

    >
    > Under fixed 6.0 basic js standards minimum thx!!


    Um, my Internet Explorer 6 runs setTimeout() just fine.

    Can you show us the page where this is failing?

    Did you ever try Lee's example, just to see if a very simple call worked?

    The more of an attempt you make, the better solution others can provide.

    --
    -Lost
    Remove the extra words to reply by e-mail. Don't e-mail me. I am
    kidding. No I am not.
    -Lost, May 18, 2007
    #15
  16. Guest

    On May 17, 10:04 pm, -Lost <> wrote:
    > wrote:
    > > On May 17, 8:59 pm, -Lost <> wrote:
    > >> wrote:
    > >>> <sniiiipporinie>
    > >>> None of these thoughtful examples worked, mainly because they use
    > >>> setTimeout to achieve delay. Can some other weird out of box thinking
    > >>> achieve reliable delay/then do ()function step?
    > >> What version of Internet Explorer are you using?

    >
    > > Under fixed 6.0 basic js standards minimum thx!!

    >
    > Um, my Internet Explorer 6 runs setTimeout() just fine.
    >
    > Can you show us the page where this is failing?
    >
    > Did you ever try Lee's example, just to see if a very simple call worked?
    >
    > The more of an attempt you make, the better solution others can provide.
    >
    > --
    > -Lost
    > Remove the extra words to reply by e-mail. Don't e-mail me. I am
    > kidding. No I am not.


    Lost, just seperating the theory from the request, can such
    theoretical delay to execute functions, be created without expressly
    using the command setTimeout()?
    , May 18, 2007
    #16
  17. Guest

    On May 17, 10:44 pm, -Lost <> wrote:
    > wrote:
    > > On May 17, 10:04 pm, -Lost <> wrote:
    > >> wrote:
    > >>> On May 17, 8:59 pm, -Lost <> wrote:
    > >>>> wrote:
    > >>>>> <sniiiipporinie>
    > >>>>> None of these thoughtful examples worked, mainly because they use
    > >>>>> setTimeout to achieve delay. Can some other weird out of box thinking
    > >>>>> achieve reliable delay/then do ()function step?
    > >>>> What version of Internet Explorer are you using?
    > >>> Under fixed 6.0 basic js standards minimum thx!!
    > >> Um, my Internet Explorer 6 runs setTimeout() just fine.

    >
    > >> Can you show us the page where this is failing?

    >
    > >> Did you ever try Lee's example, just to see if a very simple call worked?

    >
    > >> The more of an attempt you make, the better solution others can provide.

    >
    > > Lost, just seperating the theory from the request, can such
    > > theoretical delay to execute functions, be created without expressly
    > > using the command setTimeout()?

    >
    > Alright, separating both theory and logic:
    >
    > 1. Setup a never ending loop that checks if Date returns a value at or
    > beyond the length of your "delay."
    > 2. Use setInterval once by immediately clearing it after a certain
    > amount of executions. 1, in this case.
    >
    > --
    > -Lost
    > Remove the extra words to reply by e-mail. Don't e-mail me. I am
    > kidding. No I am not.


    1. is better, as setInterval seems to not function too, so we are left
    with comparing system dates.... can you super plz. show starting
    example, that shall execute alert('green'); after declared input wait
    of 5 seconds?
    , May 18, 2007
    #17
  18. RobG Guest

    On May 18, 1:32 pm, wrote:
    > On May 17, 10:04 pm, -Lost <> wrote:
    > > wrote:
    > > > On May 17, 8:59 pm, -Lost <> wrote:
    > > >> wrote:
    > > >>> None of these thoughtful examples worked, mainly because they use
    > > >>> setTimeout to achieve delay. Can some other weird out of box thinking
    > > >>> achieve reliable delay/then do ()function step?
    > > >> What version of Internet Explorer are you using?

    >
    > > > Under fixed 6.0 basic js standards minimum thx!!

    >
    > > Um, my Internet Explorer 6 runs setTimeout() just fine.

    >
    > > Can you show us the page where this is failing?

    >
    > > Did you ever try Lee's example, just to see if a very simple call worked?

    >
    > > The more of an attempt you make, the better solution others can provide.

    >
    > Lost, just seperating the theory from the request, can such
    > theoretical delay to execute functions, be created without expressly
    > using the command setTimeout()?


    Yes, using setInterval. Where setTimout runs once, setInterval runs
    regularly at the interval you set. So you could put commands to be
    run in a queue (say using an object to store them), then have
    setInterval wake up at say 5 second intervals , execute whatever is in
    the queue (or not if a particular item's time isn't up yet), then
    remove executed functions from the queue.

    This strategy is employed by those who wish to construct their own
    system of calling multiple handlers for an event and don't trust
    browsers to run them in the right sequence, or who want to
    conditionally execute some handlers based on the outcome of other
    handlers. Most javascript libraries include some kind of queue
    management.

    There is no other way to run a command at some specified time or
    interval or to insert a pause/wait/sleep in a running function.


    --
    Rob
    RobG, May 18, 2007
    #18
  19. Lee Guest

    said:
    >
    >On May 17, 10:44 pm, -Lost <> wrote:
    >> wrote:
    >> > On May 17, 10:04 pm, -Lost <> wrote:
    >> >> wrote:
    >> >>> On May 17, 8:59 pm, -Lost <> wrote:
    >> >>>> wrote:
    >> >>>>> <sniiiipporinie>
    >> >>>>> None of these thoughtful examples worked, mainly because they use
    >> >>>>> setTimeout to achieve delay. Can some other weird out of box thinking
    >> >>>>> achieve reliable delay/then do ()function step?
    >> >>>> What version of Internet Explorer are you using?
    >> >>> Under fixed 6.0 basic js standards minimum thx!!
    >> >> Um, my Internet Explorer 6 runs setTimeout() just fine.

    >>
    >> >> Can you show us the page where this is failing?

    >>
    >> >> Did you ever try Lee's example, just to see if a very simple call worked?

    >>
    >> >> The more of an attempt you make, the better solution others can provide.

    >>
    >> > Lost, just seperating the theory from the request, can such
    >> > theoretical delay to execute functions, be created without expressly
    >> > using the command setTimeout()?

    >>
    >> Alright, separating both theory and logic:
    >>
    >> 1. Setup a never ending loop that checks if Date returns a value at or
    >> beyond the length of your "delay."
    >> 2. Use setInterval once by immediately clearing it after a certain
    >> amount of executions. 1, in this case.
    >>
    >> --
    >> -Lost
    >> Remove the extra words to reply by e-mail. Don't e-mail me. I am
    >> kidding. No I am not.

    >
    >1. is better, as setInterval seems to not function too, so we are left
    >with comparing system dates.... can you super plz. show starting
    >example, that shall execute alert('green'); after declared input wait
    >of 5 seconds?


    It would be irresponsible to show you how to code a loop that
    consumes the entire CPU until you've at least shown that you've
    been attempting to use the proper methods correctly.

    If you can't figure out how to code a loop that compares the
    time, I certainly don't believe you've been able to figure
    out the correct way to use setTimeout() and/or setInterval().

    Did you try running my example code?


    --
    Lee, May 18, 2007
    #19
  20. In comp.lang.javascript message <
    oglegroups.com>, Thu, 17 May 2007 11:02:01, posted:
    >hi can Variant archiving setTimout('.. capability be done without
    >using it? :)


    If your mother tongue is of non-obscure West European mainland origin,
    please write in it. For any such language, there is almost certainly
    someone here who can read it. You can add an 'English' translation to
    confuse the monoglots.

    --
    (c) John Stockton, Surrey, UK. ???@merlyn.demon.co.uk Turnpike v6.05 MIME.
    Web <URL:http://www.merlyn.demon.co.uk/> - FAQish topics, acronyms, & links.
    In MS OE, choose Tools, Options, Send; select Plain Text for News and E-mail.
    Don't quote more than is needed, and respond after each quoted part.
    Dr J R Stockton, May 18, 2007
    #20
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Stephen Inkpen

    Timers in application web programming

    Stephen Inkpen, Jul 16, 2003, in forum: ASP .Net
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    339
    Ken Cox [Microsoft MVP]
    Jul 16, 2003
  2. Kelsang Wangchuk

    System.Timers.Timer vs. System.Threading.Timer

    Kelsang Wangchuk, Jul 31, 2003, in forum: ASP .Net
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    713
    Kelsang Wangchuk
    Jul 31, 2003
  3. Girish Pal Singh

    timers

    Girish Pal Singh, Aug 11, 2003, in forum: ASP .Net
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    562
    Kevin Spencer
    Aug 11, 2003
  4. Girish Pal Singh

    Web Timers

    Girish Pal Singh, Aug 13, 2003, in forum: ASP .Net
    Replies:
    4
    Views:
    443
    George Ter-Saakov
    Aug 13, 2003
  5. Starwynd
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    391
    Tor Iver Wilhelmsen
    Nov 23, 2003
Loading...

Share This Page