That is what I call a good constructive critisism.
OK - here's some more! It's not criticism but I hope it is constructive.
And my understanding or idea was that the sticky would act as a quick ref for the many very similar questions on the delay()-less programming when it is more than one item.
The wording of this phrase brings out a thought that I was working on last night but didn't have time to complete. Here is the essence of what I was trying to formulate for submission. 'Blink without delay' is not the same as 'Blink without delay()'.
The real problem, which non-techies might not realize, is that the use of delay() ties up the processor while you are waiting whereas other techniques do not - and this is what should be emphasized somewhere. It is not the delay that is being replaced, it is the technique for determining the delay that is being changed.
The original 'Blink without delay' shows you how blink an LED while doing something else and this version (whatever you decide to call it), shows you how to blink two LEDs independently while doing something else. Throwing in an extra LED, while interesting, informative, and useful, does not add much to understanding the original problem and it's solution.
What needs to be worked on next is how to demonstrate the use of the delay()-less technique for something or some things other than blinking LEDs.
The sticky was not mine alone - it is a collaborative effort
Yes - I figured that out after the link was fixed.
Don