From acface5c116b04ca4f463d5e04a70323eee8a7f0 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Desour Date: Thu, 24 Oct 2024 14:41:51 +0200 Subject: [PATCH] oops, it's not a lower bound. it's rather first lower, then <1ms before upper. I forgot --- doc/lua_api.md | 7 +++---- 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-) diff --git a/doc/lua_api.md b/doc/lua_api.md index d182e437be306..f6deeb08bba77 100644 --- a/doc/lua_api.md +++ b/doc/lua_api.md @@ -6926,10 +6926,9 @@ Timing started at least `time` seconds after the last time a server-step started, measured with globalstep dtime. * In particular this can result in relatively large delays if `time` is close - to the server-step dtime. For example, with a target server-step of 0.09 s - (the engine uses the target as a lower bound for the actual server-step - dtime), `minetest.after(0.09, ...)` usually waits two steps, resulting in - a delay of about 0.18 s. + to the server-step dtime. For example, with a target server-step of 0.09 s, + `minetest.after(0.09, ...)` usually waits two steps, resulting in a delay + of about 0.18 s. * If `time` is `0`, the job is executed in the next step. * `job:cancel()`