> -----Original Message-----
> From: David J. Topper [mailto:topper virginia edu]
> Sent: Monday, October 29, 2001 10:57 AM
> To: Paul Davis
> Cc: Havoc Pennington; gtk-list gnome org
> Subject: Re: gtk_timeout_change()?
>
>
> Hi folks,
>
> Well, at least I know what's possible. The problem I'm having isn't
> because of GUI latency or anything like that. It's due to
> the nature of
> gtk_timeout_add() and gtk_timeout_remove(). It's a different
> paradigm.
>
> If I have a timeout pulsing every 0.3 seconds, then change that to
> something else, I have removed the 0.3 second pulse. So of course it
> won't be smooth. While I'm updating my timer pulse via a
> slider or any
> other mechanism, unless the delay between the update is LESS than the
> pulse interval, of course I won't hear anything. Once I move the
> slider, I'm creating a new timer interval, which starts at time 0. A
> continuous slider move creates dozens of them, all waiting for their
> first beat.
>
> This is why a gtk_timeouot_update() would be so nice. All I really
> need to do is change the value of the timer interval, not
> reset it each
> time. There's a big difference.
>
> Am I making sense? It's a GTK design issue, not a latency /
> scheduling
> one.
>
> DT
> --
> Technical Director - Virginia Center for Computer Music
> http://www.virginia.edu/music/vccm.html
I think this is one of those cases where it is better to use threads:
http://developer.gnome.org/doc/API/glib/glib-threads.html
Esteban Quijano
Artinsoft corp.