Re: Front Scripts

I suppose if it worked the other way around, the command would be append the script of in front Bob On Jul 18, 2012, at 5:34 PM, Dar Scott wrote: > > On Jul 18, 2012, at 4:53 PM, Peter Haworth wrote: > >> This is all back to front to me…. >> >> OR >> >> "The first one now will later be la

Re: Front Scripts

On 7/18/12 7:12 PM, Dar Scott wrote: Hi, Jacque! I made the time. Thanks Dar. :) Inserting a script into the back puts it at the front of the back. That is consistent with the order in the backscripts. I have not confirmed stack libraries, but if they are the same then adding scripts in a

Re: Front Scripts

/18/12 5:53 PM, Peter Haworth wrote: > >> Hi Jacque, > >> OK, well that contradicts the dictionary entry where it describes the > exact > >> same mechanism for both front and back scripts, i.e. messages go the > first > >> inserted script last and the last ins

Re: Front Scripts

On Jul 18, 2012, at 4:53 PM, Peter Haworth wrote: > This is all back to front to me…. > > OR > > "The first one now will later be last"…. > > OR > > What goes up the chimney down but not down the chimney up? You might be comforted by these words from "The Reluctant Dragon" (1941) to be read

Re: Front Scripts

st >> inserted script last and the last inserted script first for bot front >> scripts and back scripts. Course, it wouldn't be the first time the >> dictionary was wrong > > Wouldn't be the first time I was wrong either. Someone with time should check > i

Re: Front Scripts

On 7/18/12 5:53 PM, Peter Haworth wrote: Hi Jacque, OK, well that contradicts the dictionary entry where it describes the exact same mechanism for both front and back scripts, i.e. messages go the first inserted script last and the last inserted script first for bot front scripts and back

Re: Front Scripts

Hi Jacque, OK, well that contradicts the dictionary entry where it describes the exact same mechanism for both front and back scripts, i.e. messages go the first inserted script last and the last inserted script first for bot front scripts and back scripts. Course, it wouldn't be the first

Re: Front Scripts

On 7/18/12 5:01 PM, Bob Sneidar wrote: Yes you have it right there Peter. I just read it myself, and the key is that the order the scripts appear in the list is the reverse of the order they were entered, which means the last insert goes at the top and then they scripts follow the order of the li

Re: Front Scripts

, the last goes first. Bob On Jul 18, 2012, at 2:52 PM, Peter Haworth wrote: > I read the dictionary entry as meaning that the last script inserted into > the front scripts will be executed before the first one, so the message > path starts at the last script inserted then prgresses th

Re: Front Scripts

I read the dictionary entry as meaning that the last script inserted into the front scripts will be executed before the first one, so the message path starts at the last script inserted then prgresses through any others until the first one inserted. I don;t think any of this will be a problem for

Re: Front Scripts

Thanks Richard, yes I was just reading the front script section. Pete lcSQL Software On Wed, Jul 18, 2012 at 1:50 PM, Richard Gaskin wrote: > It may just need to be more prominent - in the section on Backscripts it > includes: > >In LiveCode all libraries and backScri

Re: Front Scripts

Interesting, I would have thought the last inserted script would take precedence, as in the old Military standing order, obey the last order first. There is a lot of good wisdom to that. Bob On Jul 18, 2012, at 1:50 PM, Richard Gaskin wrote: > in such cases libraries take > precedence over

Re: Front Scripts

On Jul 18, 2012, at 2:50 PM, Richard Gaskin wrote: > It may just need to be more prominent - in the section on Backscripts it > includes: > > In LiveCode all libraries and backScripts can freely call > each others' handlers by name, with the order of insertion > only coming into play in t

Re: Front Scripts

Peter Haworth wrote: >> I'm wondering what happens if two front scripts each contain a >> handler for the same message. ... > I checked out Richard Gaskin's excellent write up on extending > the message path before asking this question, but it it doesn't

Re: Front Scripts

nd Software Engineering > Homepage: http://economy-x-talk.com > Twitter: http://twitter.com/xtalkprogrammer > KvK: 50277553 > > Economy-x-Talk is looking for an amateur painter/cartoonist/poet etc. > Contact me http://qery.us/du > > > > On 18 jul 2012, at 21:03, Pet

Re: Front Scripts

te: > I'm wondering what happens if two front scripts each contain a handler for > the same message. > > I can envisage this happening if, for example, a product I provide inserts > a front script and the user is using a product from a different developer > that also inserts a f

Front Scripts

I'm wondering what happens if two front scripts each contain a handler for the same message. I can envisage this happening if, for example, a product I provide inserts a front script and the user is using a product from a different developer that also inserts a froct script containing a ha

Re: Front Scripts

Thanks Richard, I knew it would be something simple! Pete Haworth On Jan 7, 2011, at 10:26 AM, Richard Gaskin wrote: > Peter Haworth wrote: > > I just realized that the stacks that I insert as front scripts are > > included in the Contents of a standalone application on a Mac. &

Re: Front Scripts

Peter Haworth wrote: > I just realized that the stacks that I insert as front scripts are > included in the Contents of a standalone application on a Mac. > I may decide to package some of those scripts and try to sell them > in the future but this makes them available to anyone w

Front Scripts

I just realized that the stacks that I insert as front scripts are included in the Contents of a standalone application on a Mac. I may decide to package some of those scripts and try to sell them in the future but this makes them available to anyone who takes the time to look at the contents