step 1 is, basically, what any decent code will do: "see if ANY key, if not, get the h... out"
step2 is finding the key by a shifting high.

Thus the argument about 'too much code' is hardly valid.

That, as I have posted, there are problems with multiple keys, static, is TRUE, all I am pointing out is that his logic is not totally flawed.

Do I agree with you that Mark should change to a shifting LOW, absolutely, but to call his approach "Heavily unsuited!" does not make Mark see the problem with his "working" code.
It is, as seen often here, very difficult to make someone understand that something that 'works' is wrong.
You have seen my constant barrage against 'testing' as a means of 'proof' and that is exactly what this is.
Mark states "it works" and will probably hang on to that till he sees his 'test' fail. Oddly enough, the argument about multiple keys, while VERY valid will not be seen by 'testing' if the loop is infernal since, for multiple key press, there is (almost?) always ONE key pressed at the start and ONE key pressed at the end of the multiple key press.

Thus, this is another case of defective code that just happen not to fail.

Erik