Re: Script Editor "Go To Definition"

On 9/3/13 10:03 PM, Trevor DeVore wrote: On Tue, Sep 3, 2013 at 9:18 PM, Mark Talluto wrote: Trevor made a nice plugin that makes this feature work with libraries. I do not have a link to the plugin. Maybe he will chime in. He listed it publicly once before. I am sure he would not mind it bei

Re: Script Editor "Go To Definition"

On Sep 3, 2013, at 8:03 PM, Trevor DeVore wrote: > On Tue, Sep 3, 2013 at 9:18 PM, Mark Talluto wrote: > >> >> Trevor made a nice plugin that makes this feature work with libraries. I >> do not have a link to the plugin. Maybe he will chime in. He listed it >> publicly once before. I am sure h

Re: Script Editor "Go To Definition"

On Tue, Sep 3, 2013 at 9:18 PM, Mark Talluto wrote: > > Trevor made a nice plugin that makes this feature work with libraries. I > do not have a link to the plugin. Maybe he will chime in. He listed it > publicly once before. I am sure he would not mind it being handed out. I > sent him a quick e

Re: Script Editor "Go To Definition"

Thanks Mark. Now you come to mention it, I vaguely remember the thread about Trevor's plugin. Maybe I can find it in Nabble. Pete Pete lcSQL Software On Tue, Sep 3, 2013 at 6:18 PM, Mark Talluto wrote: > On Sep 3, 2013, at 9:37 AM, Peter Haworth wrote: > > > I find the

Re: Convert E notation to standard notation

On Tue, Sep 3, 2013 at 7:03 PM, Mark Schonewille wrote: > Nope. It isn't. You're mixing up two different notations. That was the point :) > which Alejandro linked to but > which you left out on purpose yes > to confuse people. Actually, no. Yes, I was being a smart-ass, but I edit nearly ev

Re: Convert E notation to standard notation

Nope. It isn't. You're mixing up two different notations. In the current context, 10e isn't a number. In another context, it would be the (natural) exponential number e multiplied by 10. This however isn't the context of the Wikipedia page about scientific notation, which Alejandro linked to bu

Re: Convert E notation to standard notation

On Tue, Sep 3, 2013 at 2:50 PM, Mark Schonewille wrote: > I'd say that 10e isn't a number because the exponent is missing. Sure it's a number. Roughly 28 . . . :) -- Dr. Richard E. Hawkins, Esq. (702) 508-8462 ___ use-livecode mailing list use-li

Re: Script Editor "Go To Definition"

On Tue, Sep 3, 2013 at 2:12 PM, Mark Wieder wrote: > I believe that's correct. I use the IDE's script editor as little as > possible, so for the most part its bugs don't really affect me. Is there work happening to let us use real editors in the IDE? Being able to use vim would be wonderful (o

Re: Script Editor "Go To Definition"

On Sep 3, 2013, at 9:37 AM, Peter Haworth wrote: > I find the script editor right click popup menu item "Go To Definition" for > a handler name very useful, but it is always greyed out when I try to go to > a handler in a library stack, one that has been put in the message path by > a "start usin

SoCal User Group SPECIAL MEETING: Q&A with Kevin Miller, September 12

This month's meeting of the SoCal LiveCode User Group has been moved one week to accommodate a very special guest: Kevin Miller will be joining us in Pasadena to give us an update on engine development and answer your questions about LiveCode, RunRev, Kickstarter, open source, and more. The

Re: Convert E notation to standard notation

Hi Alejandro, I'd say that 10e isn't a number because the exponent is missing. 10e2, however, is a number and LiveCode understands this. put 10e2*1 --> 1000 -- Best regards, Mark Schonewille Economy-x-Talk Consulting and Software Engineering Homepage: http://economy-x-talk.com Twitter: http

Convert E notation to standard notation

Hi all, Does LiveCode have a function to convert E notation to standard notation? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_notation#E_notation This script produces a compile error: put 9.7e is a number The message is: Error description: Expression: unquoted literal Some svg files uses E notatio

Re: Script Editor "Go To Definition"

Pete- Tuesday, September 3, 2013, 1:05:24 PM, you wrote: > Mark: > That's the workaround for Richard's original bug, not the one to do with > library stacks I reported, right? I believe that's correct. I use the IDE's script editor as little as possible, so for the most part its bugs don't reall

Re: Script Editor "Go To Definition"

On Tue, Sep 3, 2013 at 12:02 PM, Mark Wieder wrote: > The workaround is to comment out line 1296 of button "Template Stack" > of group "Behaviors" of card id 1002 of stack "revNewScriptEditor" as > follows: > > if not gREVDevelopment then > if revOKTarget(tObject) then > --next repeat

Re: Script Editor "Go To Definition"

I guess I just assumed that was the intended behavior, but it would be nice if it wasn't. On Tue, Sep 3, 2013 at 2:28 PM, Richard Gaskin wrote: > Mike Kerner wrote: > > The recipe is simple - right-click on a handler that is in a library stack >> - you can't go to definition. >> > > Confirmed.

Re: spitting nails at the IDE

Mike Kerner wrote: But deleting objects is still not undoable, yet. The engine supports that, and some IDE actions seem to allow it: 1. Make a new stack 2. Add a button 3. While the button is selected, hit the Delete key 4. Type Cmd-Z RESULT: the button reappears. Perhaps the undo of deletion

Re: Script Editor "Go To Definition"

Mike Kerner wrote: The recipe is simple - right-click on a handler that is in a library stack - you can't go to definition. Confirmed. I've added a note about that for you in the report: -- Richard Gaskin Fourth World LiveCode training and

Re: spitting nails at the IDE

On 9/3/13 1:24 PM, Mike Kerner wrote: But deleting objects is still not undoable, yet. You can, if "undo" is the very next thing you do after the deletion. If there are any actions after that though, then it isn't possible because LiveCode still only has a single-level undo chain. -- Jacque

Re: spitting nails at the IDE

Right, so unfortunately, almost all of the time, I do not notice until after it is way too late. On Tue, Sep 3, 2013 at 2:32 PM, J. Landman Gay wrote: > On 9/3/13 1:24 PM, Mike Kerner wrote: > >> But deleting objects is still not undoable, yet. >> > > You can, if "undo" is the very next thing yo

Re: Script Editor "Go To Definition"

Richard- Tuesday, September 3, 2013, 11:28:48 AM, you wrote: > I've added a note about that for you in the report: > I added the following comment to the bug report: The workaround is to comment out line 1296 of button "Template Stack" of group

Re: spitting nails at the IDE

But deleting objects is still not undoable, yet. On Tue, Sep 3, 2013 at 2:23 PM, Mike Kerner wrote: > I also run into the windowing issue, but my situation is, as usual, it > seems, more obscure: > 1) Have mac mini > 2) Use at work with two large monitors > 3) Take mini home, where I only have o

Re: spitting nails at the IDE

I also run into the windowing issue, but my situation is, as usual, it seems, more obscure: 1) Have mac mini 2) Use at work with two large monitors 3) Take mini home, where I only have one large monitor I have learned that AirDisplay (an app that lets you use your iPad as a second monitor) saves a

Re: Script Editor "Go To Definition"

The recipe is simple - right-click on a handler that is in a library stack - you can't go to definition. I believe that you can't step into a library handler, either, during debugging. The only way to debug library handlers is to put debug checkpoints in the libraries. On Tue, Sep 3, 2013 at 2:

Re: Script Editor "Go To Definition"

Peter Haworth wrote: > I find the script editor right click popup menu item "Go To > Definition" for a handler name very useful, but it is always > greyed out when I try to go to a handler in a library stack, > one that has been put in the message path by a "start using" > command. > > I'm tempte

Script Editor "Go To Definition"

I find the script editor right click popup menu item "Go To Definition" for a handler name very useful, but it is always greyed out when I try to go to a handler in a library stack, one that has been put in the message path by a "start using" command. I'm tempted to enter a bug report about this b

Re: mergAndroid released!

>> http://barncard.com/downloads/pancake-printer-2012-03-07%2009.19.40.jpg > > FAIL! > > The embossed metal instructions say "PRESS OK ONCE FOR ONE SERVING" > but the display says "Press OK For 2". > > And the "press here" arrow doesn't point to the OK button. > > This would never make it into

RE: mergAndroid released!

>When I saw this at a hotel a few weeks ago, I also was unable to overcome my... and try it. >Peter >UCLA I now finally know how non-techies felt about PCs and Smart-Phones when we first had them. ___ use-livecode mailing list use-livecode@lists.runre

Re: mergAndroid released!

stephen- Monday, September 2, 2013, 11:50:13 PM, you wrote: > you mean one of these wondrous machines: > http://barncard.com/downloads/pancake-printer-2012-03-07%2009.19.40.jpg FAIL! The embossed metal instructions say "PRESS OK ONCE FOR ONE SERVING" but the display says "Press OK For 2". And

Re: mergAndroid released!

When I saw this at a hotel a few weeks ago, I also was unable to overcome my... and try it. Peter UCLA On Sep 3, 2013, at 12:01 AM, stephen barncard wrote: > On Tue, Sep 3, 2013 at 12:01 AM, Monte Goulding > wrote: > >> That must be the model up from the one in The George... it was a few >> m

[ANN] LiveCode for the Real Beginner

Hi everyone, In a few days, we will be shipping copies of my book Programming LiveCode for the Real Beginner again. If you don't want to wait long, this is the time to order your copy. If you order it now, We'll be shipping it in a few days and you'll get it within 10 days (depending on your

Re: mergAndroid released!

On Tue, Sep 3, 2013 at 12:01 AM, Monte Goulding wrote: > That must be the model up from the one in The George... it was a few > minutes not 45 seconds... ;-) I didn't have the courage to eat one. -- Stephen Barncard San Francisco Ca. USA more about sqb