> Thanks for the tip! Unlike data, which can be shared between displays,
> separate instances of RangeControl need to be maintained for each
> display that are thereafter sync'ed when any one is changed. Sounds
> like a plan. The example code didn't make use of the syncControl()
> methods but rather explicitly updated control state. Wouldn't just
> using syncControl() be easier; is there some hidden gotcha?
I don't know whether it would work for that. Dave Glowacki
wrote syncControl() as part of his effort to create
collaborative Displays. I don't know if you can just call it,
or whether it handles event loops in that straightforward way.
You could experiment.