mwieder wrote:
> I thought script-only stacks had to be separate files. I didn't
> realize they could be attached as substacks and bound into standalone
> apps. That does make a difference.
Hmmm...I'm not sure that they can. For a script-only stack to be truly
script-only, it would need to be s
app.
Richard Gaskin wrote
> This can't be stressed enough.
>
> The only difference between script-only stacks and traditional binary
> stacks is what's stored when saving.
OK - I stand corrected then.
I thought script-only stacks had to be separate files. I didn't realize they
could be attached
com
Subject: Re: Updating Text-Script Only Stacks in Run-Time, Message Path
Memory
Mark Waddingham wrote:
> The point here is that the purpose of script-only stackfiles is > purely
that of storage - storage in a form which means they work > well with
version control such as git.
This
Mark Waddingham wrote:
> The point here is that the purpose of script-only stackfiles is
> purely that of storage - storage in a form which means they work
> well with version control such as git.
This can't be stressed enough.
The only difference between script-only stacks and traditional bina
On 2016-11-05 16:04, Sannyasin Brahmanathaswami wrote:
But, am I the only on that thinks this is odd behavior? If I am right,
doesn't it break the "write, run with no compile" principle of
LiveCode? If I edit the script of a binary stack, those changes are
immediately implemented. Should it not
Hi,
Sannyasin Brahmanathaswami wrote
> ERGO conclude: editing a script only stack and saving it does *not* update
> the "live" version of that file in memory that is in use by the engine.
I'd assume this to be legit & desired behavior. Imagine, your StandAlone
loads an utility stack from the web
> On 7 Nov. 2016, at 6:37 pm, Mark Wieder wrote:
>
> Really?
> I can assign substacks to script-only stacks?
> I can use a script-only stack as a substack?
Sure but nothing but the stack script will save. I think for sanity we have
disabled setting of substacks via the property inspector thoug
On 11/06/2016 01:00 PM, Monte Goulding wrote:
The IDE doesn’t know much about script only stacks so I’d be surprised if any
differences in behaviour can be attributed to the fact it’s script only. There
really is very little difference between a script only stack and a regular
stack other tha
On Sun, Nov 6, 2016 at 4:27 PM, Monte Goulding wrote:
> Sure you can edit them in a text editor that’s fine. What we are talking
> about is having those changes update the version that is currently loaded
> into a running IDE.
I remember Jacque something about using 'revert' for a situation lik
> On 7 Nov. 2016, at 11:23 am, stephen barncard
> wrote:
>
> We already edit livecode script-only-stacks on server.
Sure you can edit them in a text editor that’s fine. What we are talking about
is having those changes update the version that is currently loaded into a
running IDE.
Cheers
On Sun, Nov 6, 2016 at 1:00 PM, Monte Goulding wrote:
> You only need to do that if you don’t edit in the IDE. I don’t believe
> there’s ever been official support for editing stack scripts outside the
> IDE.
We already edit livecode script-only-stacks on server.
The only caveat. I would imagi
> On 7 Nov. 2016, at 7:52 am, Mark Wieder wrote:
>
> If I edit a behavior script then I expect objects using that behavior script
> to use the new features as soon as I compile the script. I would expect that
> the same would be true of script-only stacks: I edit the script, and on
> saving t
On 11/06/2016 11:36 AM, Monte Goulding wrote:
This introduces some interesting initialisation issues. What if the
initialisation is the thing that changed? What if script local values are not
appropriate for the new version? What if there’s some self generating UI that
isn’t there because onl
> On 7 Nov. 2016, at 3:23 am, Mark Wieder wrote:
>
> But...
> shouldn't that be the big advantage of script-only stacks?
I think this would be relatively handy for trivial stacks but have issues for
more complicated ones. Also consider why should this only be the case for
script only stacks?
On 11/05/2016 09:31 PM, Monte Goulding wrote:
> Of course if you are making changes in a text editor and expecting
those to be reflected in the running IDE then you are out of luck.
But...
shouldn't that be the big advantage of script-only stacks?
--
Mark Wieder
ahsoftw...@gmail.com
__
> On 6 Nov. 2016, at 1:33 pm, Mark Wieder wrote:
>
>> So, yes… something is causing the IDE not to pick up the changes in the open
>> scripts and (re)placing it in the message path.
>
> Yep. It's one of the two reasons I don't use script-only stacks.
From the sounds of the original descriptio
On 11/05/2016 02:39 PM, Sannyasin Brahmanathaswami wrote:
So, yes… something is causing the IDE not to pick up the changes in the open
scripts and (re)placing it in the message path.
Yep. It's one of the two reasons I don't use script-only stacks.
--
Mark Wieder
ahsoftw...@gmail.com
_
right… not the engine…
some IDE gremlin…
restarted LC…
open some script only stack that had been put into use earlier,
edit save and the changes are available runtime.
So, yes… something is causing the IDE not to pick up the changes in the open
scripts and (re)placing it in the message pat
On 11/5/16 10:04 AM, Sannyasin Brahmanathaswami wrote:
But the engine does not yet "see" my new handler. Just for fun: open
stack file on disk.. in BBEdit: yes, confirmed, my changes are
there.
ERGO conclude: editing a script only stack and saving it does *not*
update the "live" version of that
19 matches
Mail list logo
