Get Info by right-clicking on the filder. You can set the permission for th=
at folder under Sharing and Permissions. But there may be some other issues=
involved with enhanced security features.=20
Bob S
> On Jun 5, 2025, at 10:36 AM, Paul Dupuis via use-livecode wrote:
>=20
> I know most mac
I know most macOS users have full admin of their computers, but in some
of our users are students on university lab systems where permissions
are restricted.
I have run into a problem where 'the detailed folders' is failing with
an execution error "get: error in expression: (Line 2695, column
Yea, a number of years ago, I went to always fully qualifying object
references through all the techniques you mentioned, but we've just not
had a chance to scrub the entire code base (100,000 lines+) and so this
one got missed until now.
We're now going through the entire code base to catch a
As my application(s) became more complex, I also ran into topstack and
curentcard issues. As a result, I am in the habit now of either using "of me"
appended to every command of in a card or stack script, or else sending the
long id of an object to a command or function that is not in the messag
going until all the keystrokes were
processed).
Bob S
> On Aug 1, 2022, at 12:43 , Paul Dupuis via use-livecode
> wrote:
>
> Now I am very curious about exactly what wait 0 with messages does and also
> about what actions change the defaultStack. Does anyone know of an art
On 7/30/2022 3:53 PM, Paul Dupuis via use-livecode wrote:
My understanding of 'wait 0 with messages' is that it will cause any
pending messages, that are not scheduled for a time later than the
current time, in the pendingMessages queue to be processed before
continuing. Messages
This is correct.
Bob S
> On Jul 31, 2022, at 12:14 , J. Landman Gay via use-livecode
> wrote:
>
> On 7/31/22 12:04 AM, Mark Wieder via use-livecode wrote:
>> I don't think "wait 0" by itself does anything useful. Make a stack with two
>> buttons. Runn
On 7/31/22 12:14, J. Landman Gay via use-livecode wrote:
On 7/31/22 12:04 AM, Mark Wieder via use-livecode wrote:
I don't think "wait 0" by itself does anything useful. Make a stack
with two buttons. Running the script in the first button will prevent
mouseUp events in butt
On 7/31/22 12:04 AM, Mark Wieder via use-livecode wrote:
I don't think "wait 0" by itself does anything useful. Make a stack with two buttons. Running
the script in the first button will prevent mouseUp events in button 2 from being processed.
I think it must do something
On 7/30/22 19:02, Paul Dupuis via use-livecode wrote:
So Mark,
Your understanding is that 'wait 0' (WITHOUT with messages) would allow
OS events like a screen redraw, USB drive insertion/removal, etc. but
NOT livecode engine events in the queue like mouseDown, mouseUp,
resume
On 7/30/2022 7:49 PM, Mark Wieder via use-livecode wrote:
On 7/30/22 12:53, Paul Dupuis via use-livecode wrote:
My understanding of 'wait 0 with messages' is that it will cause any
pending messages, that are not scheduled for a time later than the
current time, in the pendingMessage
On 7/30/22 12:53, Paul Dupuis via use-livecode wrote:
My understanding of 'wait 0 with messages' is that it will cause any
pending messages, that are not scheduled for a time later than the
current time, in the pendingMessages queue to be processed before
continuing. Messages late
My understanding of 'wait 0 with messages' is that it will cause any
pending messages, that are not scheduled for a time later than the
current time, in the pendingMessages queue to be processed before
continuing. Messages later than the current time (when the statement is
executed
chunk is giving me this error. "error Error 0 on socket"
>
> Does anyone have any idea what the size limitation is all about and how to
> get around it?
>
> Thanks,
>
> Tom
>
___
use-livecode mailing list
use-livecode@list
Hi Folks, I'm getting a strange socket error when I POST some base64
encoded data to a URL that has HTTPD Server running.
Everything works fine when I send just a w bit of data... but a
bigger chunk is giving me this error. "error Error 0 on socket"
Does anyone have an
On Wed, Oct 26, 2016 at 1:36 AM, Peter TB Brett
wrote:
>
> 1, 3, 5, 7, 2, 6, 4
>
> This _could_ account for the behaviour that Richard is reporting. I know
> that it is fixed in the development branch [1].
At the moment, while I single step through a script, I notice that the
message queue has
THAT is news to me. I thot the queue would clear. Good to know.
Bob S
On Oct 25, 2016, at 22:51 , Monte Goulding
mailto:mo...@appisle.net>> wrote:
So if you had two messages in the queue scheduled for exactly the same time and
only did a wait 0 with messages then only one would b
ave a number of places with blocks like
send doIt to stack worker in 0
wait 0 with messages
doSomethingElse
I'm seeing a situation in which the code hits "DoSomethingElse"
before the "doIt" happens.
If you want to ensure "doIt" happens before the calling ha
ed and then you will run out
of time because you are only waiting 0. If you need to guarantee that you are
waiting until the message is sent then do something like:
local sHandled
on Foo
put false into sHandled
send “Bar” to me in 0
wait until sHandled with messages
— do something e
> On 26 Oct. 2016, at 3:26 pm, Dr. Hawkins wrote:
>
>
> ON a "wait 0 with messages", does this effectively put the next line in the
> queue as the last (first? random?) entry for the current (next?)
> millisecond?
I think I'll need an interpreter to understa
On 10/25/2016 05:29 PM, hh wrote:
send in -the seconds seconds ?
Job has to be done in 1970 ... When I was a young man with curly hair.
In that case you don't want "send *in* "
What you need is "send *to* "
--
Mark Wieder
ahsoftw...@gmail.com
___
On Tue, Oct 25, 2016 at 5:49 PM, Monte Goulding wrote:
>
> send “foo” in 0
> —> insert script taking longer than 1 millisecond here
> send “bar” in -1 millisecond
>
> “bar” will be handled after “foo"
This leads to the next question.
ON a "wait 0 with messages&
> On 26 Oct. 2016, at 11:29 am, hh wrote:
>
> send in -the seconds seconds ?
> Job has to be done in 1970 ... When I was a young man with curly hair.
>
> Monte, please build a time machine.
;-)
The issue is this:
send “foo” in 0
—> insert script taking longer than 1
send in -the seconds seconds ?
Job has to be done in 1970 ... When I was a young man with curly hair.
Monte, please build a time machine.
___
use-livecode mailing list
use-livecode@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and ma
> On 26 Oct. 2016, at 11:13 am, hh wrote:
>
> [1] There is also Jacque's recent(?) info: send may also be called with a
> negative argument in order to overtake the current queue:
>send doIt to stack worker in -1 millisecs
Actually this does not guarantee that the message will be at the fr
... [3] Or try to use
send doIt to stack worker in 0 millisecs
this is 16 times faster than 0 ticks ;-)
___
use-livecode mailing list
use-livecode@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription
is
> more performant anyways.
>
> Richard G. wrote:
> >
> > Dr. Hawkins wrote:
> > > I (like I assume many others) have a number of places with blocks like
> > >
> > > send doIt to stack worker in 0
> > > wait 0 with messages
> > >
On Tue, Oct 25, 2016 at 3:31 PM, Mark Talluto
wrote:
> You might consider using 'dispatch' instead of 'send' if you really want
> it to execute the moment that line shows up. I read somewhere the dispatch
> is more performant anyways.
>
>
to be clear: I would certainly *like* it to happen right
> On Oct 25, 2016, at 10:18 AM, Richard Gaskin
> wrote:
>
> Dr. Hawkins wrote:
>
> > I (like I assume many others) have a number of places with blocks like
> >
> > send doIt to stack worker in 0
> > wait 0 with messages
> > doSomethingElse
> >
> out of time because you are only waiting 0.
In this particular case, with certainty there are no pending messages when
it this one is sent. It could conceivably be engine messages, but I'm also
seeing the reproducible case that it's the first sent message when this
bites, while if t
n you will run out
of time because you are only waiting 0. If you need to guarantee that you are
waiting until the message is sent then do something like:
local sHandled
on Foo
put false into sHandled
send “Bar” to me in 0
wait until sHandled with messages
— do something else
en
On Tue, Oct 25, 2016 at 12:28 PM, mwieder wrote:
> That's the way the "send" command works. See the dictionary for details.
>
> If you "send" a command it's executed immediately, before anything else in
> the current handler.
> If you "send in time" it's executed *after* the current handler finis
-
--
Mark Wieder
ahsoftw...@gmail.com
--
View this message in context:
http://runtime-revolution.278305.n4.nabble.com/sluggishness-of-8-1-1-on-send-in-0-wait-0-pairs-tp4709715p4709740.html
Sent from the Revolution - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
On Tue, Oct 25, 2016 at 10:18 AM, Richard Gaskin wrote:
> Dr. Hawkins wrote:
>
> > I (like I assume many others) have a number of places with blocks like
> >
> > send doIt to stack worker in 0
> > wait 0 with messages
> > doSomethingElse
> >
> &g
Dr. Hawkins wrote:
> I (like I assume many others) have a number of places with blocks like
>
> send doIt to stack worker in 0
> wait 0 with messages
> doSomethingElse
>
> I'm seeing a situation in which the code hits "DoSomethingElse"
> before the "
I still don't have my finger completely on this one, but watching the
sluggish shifting back and forth between tabs on the script editor, I think
I'm starting to grasp it.
I (like I assume many others) have a number of places with blocks like
send doIt to stack worker in 0
wait 0 wit
app in LC 6.7.6 and attempting to run it on the simulator
> 8.2 results in the error
>
> “Unable to start simulation: The operation couldn’t be completed.
> (LaunchServicesError error 0.)”
>
> The app previously ran fine. And it also seems to run ok under 6.7.8 RC1.
>
>
After installing LC 6.7.8 RC1 and testing an app under it, I now find that
opening the same app in LC 6.7.6 and attempting to run it on the simulator 8.2
results in the error
“Unable to start simulation: The operation couldn’t be completed.
(LaunchServicesError error 0.)”
The app previously
Kay.
Check my post in the "feature request" pane in the forum.
Craig Newman
-Original Message-
From: Kay C Lan
To: How to use LiveCode
Sent: Sun, Oct 18, 2015 1:57 am
Subject: Re: Forcing string comparisons, or When is "0" not 0?
On Sun, Oct 18, 2015 at 1:29
On Sun, Oct 18, 2015 at 1:29 PM, Kay C Lan wrote:
> but only by strictCompare set to 0 or 1 would it be possible to easily
> determine that these numbers are in fact just strings in amongst words as
> part of lines of strings.
>
Should read:
but only by strctCompare set to 2 or 1
se language
additions aren't making it all the more complex. What about an alternative
approach of using a property to turn 'strictness' on or off, in much the
same way as caseSensitive is used. Although instead of true or false the
'strictCompare' property may have to be tri-lev
internally except in specific cases due to a
> rather subtle issue with representations of numbers as strings.
I should have shown the code that I ran in the message box (multiline):
put "0" + 0 into tVar1
put tVar1 is really an integer
It returned false.
I added a test to my
I pondered 'is exactly' for the 'is really' semantics previously proposed which
are the same as yours :)
However I do think that it is slightly misleading - when it comes to numbers
(due to the inexact representation used) you can end up with two numeric tokens
which are slightly different but
s of numbers as strings.
Sent from my iPhone
> On 15 Oct 2015, at 23:47, Peter W A Wood wrote:
>
> Mark
>
>> On 16 Oct 2015, at 01:07, Mark Waddingham wrote:
>>
>> put "0" + 0 into tVar1 -- tVar is really a number
>> put "0" &
Mark
> On 16 Oct 2015, at 01:07, Mark Waddingham wrote:
>
> put "0" + 0 into tVar1 -- tVar is really a number
>put "0" & 0 into tVar2 -- tVar is really a string
>put tVar1 is really tVar2 -- false
The current implementation appears to diffe
l | a string
| a binary string | an array ]
and as of LC8dp7 it is not working to well:
"0" is a string -> true
0 is a string -> true
0 is an integer -> false
0. is a string -> true
0. is a real -> false
"0." is a string -> true
The proposed "is
e flexible.
>
> Ralph DiMola
> IT Director
> Evergreen Information Services
> rdim...@evergreeninfo.net
> Phone: 518-636-3998 Ex:11
> Cell: 518-796-9332
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: use-livecode [mailto:use-livecode-boun...@lists.runrev.com] On
> Behalf
essage-
From: use-livecode [mailto:use-livecode-boun...@lists.runrev.com] On Behalf Of
Geoff Canyon
Sent: Thursday, October 15, 2015 2:48 PM
To: How to use LiveCode
Subject: Re: Forcing string comparisons, or When is "0" not 0?
On 2015-10-14 22:19, Devin Asay wrote:
> Shouldn’t ther
On 2015-10-14 22:19, Devin Asay wrote:
> Shouldn’t there be a way to force a string comparison? I know LC tries
> to be all helpful about casting numerals as numbers, but what if I
> want to know if it’s the exact string?
>
I think you have come up with the best syntax right there.
put 3 is "3"
yes, I know and it's great, like, what is the other one? "is me"?
If we're going to leave "is a" as is, then let's come up with something
better than "is really a"
On Thu, Oct 15, 2015 at 1:24 PM, Scott Rossi wrote:
> I'm not following all the nuances of this, but it seems you have laid the
>
Unfortunately we already had 'is a' :(
Sent from my iPhone
> On 15 Oct 2015, at 18:16, Mike Kerner wrote:
>
> We have to be able to do better than "is really a". If anything, "could be
> a" and "is a" would be more helpful, where "is a" tells us what is going on
> under the hood and "could be
I'm not following all the nuances of this, but it seems you have laid the
groundwork for a new operator: is useful
if theVar is useful then...
Regards,
Scott Rossi
Creative Director
Tactile Media, UX/UI Design
> On Oct 15, 2015, at 10:07 AM, Mark Waddingham wrote:
>
> So, anyway, a couple of
See a feature request I made in the forums. Whichever is the best/easiest/most
robust is up for grabs.
Craig Newman
-Original Message-
From: Mark Waddingham
To: How to use LiveCode
Sent: Thu, Oct 15, 2015 1:08 pm
Subject: Re: Forcing string comparisons, or When is "0" n
Definitely not before we add ain't...
If x ain't y then darnit
;)
Sent from my iPhone
> On 15 Oct 2015, at 18:11, Dr. Hawkins wrote:
>
>> On Thu, Oct 15, 2015 at 10:07 AM, Mark Waddingham wrote:
>>
>> We added 'is really a' operators in LC8 to help with writing code which
>> needs to preser
We have to be able to do better than "is really a". If anything, "could be
a" and "is a" would be more helpful, where "is a" tells us what is going on
under the hood and "could be a" lets us know what we can do with the
container.
On Thu, Oct 15, 2015 at 1:11 PM, Dr. Hawkins wrote:
> On Thu, Oc
On Thu, Oct 15, 2015 at 10:07 AM, Mark Waddingham wrote:
> We added 'is really a' operators in LC8 to help with writing code which
> needs to preserve values exactly (the main use-case is lcVCS) - so we have
> been considering an 'is really' operator.
>
Soon to be accompanied by the 'damnit, I m
have to explain about whilst LiveCode is a 'typeless'
language (assuming you ignore the existence of arrays ;)), the engine
still has a notion of distinct types internally (it needs to store the
values in memory in some chosen representation after all) and the
internal type of a value de
ld "Display ends with ".” then
>
> Yeah, that works, but then I end up with a mess like this:
>
> if fld “display” = 0 AND NOT fld “display” ends with “.” then …
>
> But this may be what I have to go with. That’s at least *sort of*
> comprehensible to a newbie.
>
On Wed, Oct 14, 2015 at 2:10 PM, Devin Asay wrote:
> I'll have to explain to them that “LiveCode tries its hardest to make
> something into a number if there is any chance at all that it could be a
> number, so we have to do an extra check to make sure it’s not this specific
> type of numeric exp
> On Oct 14, 2015, at 2:39 PM, Paul Dupuis wrote:
>
> if fld "Display" contains "." then
>
> of if you're just concerned with it ending with "."
>
> if fld "Display ends with ".” then
Yeah, that works, but then I end up w
know if it’s the exact string?
>>
>
> if (space & field "Display" ) = (space & someValue) then . . .
Believe it or not, when field “display” contains “0.”, the following evaluates
to TRUE:
if (space & fld “display”) = (space & “0”) then … # TRUE!
An
On Wed, Oct 14, 2015 at 1:19 PM, Devin Asay wrote:
> Shouldn’t there be a way to force a string comparison? I know LC tries to
> be all helpful about casting numerals as numbers, but what if I want to
> know if it’s the exact string?
>
if (space & field "Display" ) = (space & someValue) then .
if fld "Display" contains "." then
of if you're just concerned with it ending with "."
if fld "Display ends with "." then
___
use-livecode mailing list
use-livecode@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subsc
In a simple calculator exercise I’m doing with my class I need to know whether
the string in a field is "0" vs. "0.” (The latter can occur when the user
enters zero + dot into the calculator display field.) If it’s just “0” the next
next number key press should replace the
thats why you need kids as your cowboy testers, they do that sort of stuff w/o
even thinking about it consciously!
jeff
On Feb 22, 2013, at 10:16 PM, use-livecode-requ...@lists.runrev.com wrote:
> I wonder if anyone's tried pledging a negative amount. You never know how
> the software was writ
Mike-
Friday, February 22, 2013, 5:17:22 PM, you wrote:
> Silent?
but deadly.
--
-Mark Wieder
mwie...@ahsoftware.net
___
use-livecode mailing list
use-livecode@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscr
> From: Colin Holgate
>
> Don't know how they did it, but someone just pledged $0.
> Every bit helps. Except that bit, it didn't help too much.
I wonder if anyone's tried pledging a negative amount. You never know how
the software was written.
--
Ciao,
Silent?
On Fri, Feb 22, 2013 at 6:11 PM, Mark Wieder wrote:
> Tom-
>
> Friday, February 22, 2013, 3:10:48 PM, you wrote:
>
> > Haa . Don't you just hate sound logic sometimes??
>
> I also hate the other kind.
>
> --
> -Mark Wieder
> mwie...@ahsoftware.net
>
>
> ___
Tom-
Friday, February 22, 2013, 3:10:48 PM, you wrote:
> Haa
. Don't you just hate sound logic sometimes??
I also hate the other kind.
--
-Mark Wieder
mwie...@ahsoftware.net
___
use-livecode mailing list
use-livecode@lists.runrev.com
Please visit
Haa…. Don't you just hate sound logic sometimes??
On Feb 22, 2013, at 6:03 PM, Colin Holgate wrote:
> No reason to throw sound logic into the debate!
>
>
> On Feb 22, 2013, at 5:57 PM, Monte Goulding
> wrote:
>
>> Lol... how do you know? Maybe someone dropped their pledge by they same
>>
No reason to throw sound logic into the debate!
On Feb 22, 2013, at 5:57 PM, Monte Goulding wrote:
> Lol... how do you know? Maybe someone dropped their pledge by they same
> amount as someone added their pledge?
___
use-livecode mailing list
use-li
Lol... how do you know? Maybe someone dropped their pledge by they same amount
as someone added their pledge?
On 23/02/2013, at 9:55 AM, Colin Holgate wrote:
> Don't know how they did it, but someone just pledged $0. Every bit helps.
> Except that bit, it didn'
Don't know how they did it, but someone just pledged $0. Every bit helps.
Except that bit, it didn't help too much.
___
use-livecode mailing list
use-livecode@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and m
73 matches
Mail list logo
