Basic button question

[Cameron Laird]

In article <3bbb4f63_8 at news.newsgroups.com>,
Janos Blazi <jblazi at hotmail.com> wrote:
>> Try binding <ButtonRelease-1> instead.
>
>Thx.
>I thought of that but it is not exactly what I should like to have. I should
>like to push the button, see that it is being pushed and go on after that.
			.
			.
			.
1.  Would the button's -command serve you better than
    a <bind>ing?
2.  If you insist on an explicit <bind>, you can man-
    ipulate the order of execution of the consequences
    with bindtags.
-- 

Cameron Laird <claird at NeoSoft.com>
Business:  http://www.Phaseit.net
Personal:  http://starbase.neosoft.com/~claird/home.html