Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!mailrus!wuarchive!brutus.cs.uiuc.edu!ux1.cso.uiuc.edu!midway!news From: gft_robert@gsbacd.uchicago.edu Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.programmer Subject: Re: Two suggestions for THINK C Message-ID: <1990Aug2.170732.7361@midway.uchicago.edu> Date: 2 Aug 90 16:06:13 GMT Sender: news@midway.uchicago.edu (News Administrator) Organization: University of Chicago Graduate School of Business Lines: 26 ----- In article , pete@titan.rice.edu (Pete Keleher) writes... [...] >Many of the comments in this thread have dealt with how the compiler can >decide that it has had enough cpu so that it can let the foreground >processcrank for a bit time. In reality, the problem is that there are many >applications out there that still don't use WaitNextEvent, which would >prevent the compiler (the background applicataion) from getting any time at >all. I'm not too sure about this. I wrote an app a couple of weeks ago which didn't use WaitNextEvent (I know, shame, shame). I can get VersaTerm to download files and stuff even when my GetNextEvent-app is in the foreground. Robert ============================================================================ = gft_robert@gsbacd.uchicago.edu * generic disclaimer: * "It's more fun to = = * all my opinions are * compute" = = * mine * -Kraftwerk = ============================================================================