Re: 6.1 Installer Ubuntu

Mike- Monday, July 8, 2013, 6:24:29 PM, you wrote: > Got it guys - LiveCode is apparently using the 32-bit libraries, so you > have to install ia32-libs on a 64-bit machine. ia32-libs-multiarch:i386 > doesn't fix it. ? I thought the multiarch libraries were a superset of the ia32libs? Anyway, g

Re: 6.1 Installer Ubuntu

Got it guys - LiveCode is apparently using the 32-bit libraries, so you have to install ia32-libs on a 64-bit machine. ia32-libs-multiarch:i386 doesn't fix it. On Mon, Jul 8, 2013 at 10:13 AM, Mike Kerner wrote: > I am also running 12.04 LTS. I've tried both the commercial and community > ve

Re: 6.1 Installer Ubuntu

I am also running 12.04 LTS. I've tried both the commercial and community versions. On Mon, Jul 8, 2013 at 5:27 AM, Neil Roger wrote: > On 07/07/2013 04:41, Mike Kerner wrote: > >> Is anybody else having trouble with the 6.1 installer in Ubuntu? I >> checked >> the executable checkbox, but fo

Re: 6.1 Installer Ubuntu

On 07/07/2013 04:41, Mike Kerner wrote: Is anybody else having trouble with the 6.1 installer in Ubuntu? I checked the executable checkbox, but for some reason it won't run as an admin or root. I've tried downloading it a couple of times. In the past all I had to do was check the executable bo

Re: 6.1 Installer Ubuntu

On 07/07/2013 08:03 PM, Mike Kerner wrote: That didn't work either. On the desktop...it still won't open. Have you successfully installed other LiveCode versions in this particular Ubuntu installation? ___ use-livecode mailing list use-livecode@l

Re: 6.1 Installer Ubuntu

That didn't work either. On the desktop...it still won't open. On Sun, Jul 7, 2013 at 3:33 PM, Richmond wrote: > On 07/07/2013 06:37 PM, Mike Kerner wrote: > >> So, don't put it in the downloads folder, put it on the desktop? >> > > Yer: but I'm not very imaginative, and the RunRev site didn't

Re: 6.1 Installer Ubuntu

On 07/07/2013 06:37 PM, Mike Kerner wrote: So, don't put it in the downloads folder, put it on the desktop? Yer: but I'm not very imaginative, and the RunRev site didn't say nuffin' about that either, so I dids what I'm tolds, an it ain't talkin' turkey. Or, to put it in a more refined way:R

Re: 6.1 Installer Ubuntu

So, don't put it in the downloads folder, put it on the desktop? On Sun, Jul 7, 2013 at 1:55 AM, Richmond wrote: > On 07/07/2013 06:41 AM, Mike Kerner wrote: > >> Is anybody else having trouble with the 6.1 installer in Ubuntu? I >> checked >> the executable checkbox, but for some reason it won

Re: 6.1 Installer Ubuntu

On 07/07/2013 06:41 AM, Mike Kerner wrote: Is anybody else having trouble with the 6.1 installer in Ubuntu? I checked the executable checkbox, but for some reason it won't run as an admin or root. I've tried downloading it a couple of times. In the past all I had to do was check the executable

Re: 6.1

On 04/07/2013, at 7:55 AM, Peter Haworth wrote: > I'll take a look at what's involved. It's not complicated and actually you could do docs editing without even checking out the repo locally by editing the files on github Create a github account Go the runrev repo Click fork go to your fork in

Re: 6.1

On Wed, Jul 3, 2013 at 2:30 PM, Monte Goulding wrote: > Actually, I spoke too soon. The color property docs are wrong. They should > state that an object can only have one or the other. The way it's worded > does seem to indicate patterns have precedence which they don't. > That's the way I read

Re: 6.1

On Wed, Jul 3, 2013 at 2:25 PM, Monte Goulding wrote: > > The description of the properties property improvements says: > > > > "It returns the minimal set of properties of an object to allow it to be > > recreated exactly." > > I think this statement is still correct even though it now returns em

Re: 6.1

On 04/07/2013, at 7:25 AM, Monte Goulding wrote: >> Maybe I'm misunderstanding what that means but it seems to be contradict >> what the dictionary entries for the various xxxcolor properties say, eg "If >> an object's *foregroundPattern* is set, the pattern is shown instead of the >> color spec

Re: 6.1

On 04/07/2013, at 7:04 AM, Peter Haworth wrote: > The description of the properties property improvements says: > > "It returns the minimal set of properties of an object to allow it to be > recreated exactly." I think this statement is still correct even though it now returns empty values if

Re: 6.1 rc 1 on Linux (at least)

On 06/25/2013 03:28 PM, John Dixon wrote: Don't feel that it is just you Richmond... the same is happening on the Mac...:-) Well' sorry to tell you, but that does not make me feel "all warm and cuddly"! And what on the Windows front? This has got to be busted before the final release. Ric

RE: 6.1 rc 1 on Linux (at least)

Don't feel that it is just you Richmond... the same is happening on the Mac...:-) > Date: Tue, 25 Jun 2013 15:05:22 +0300 > From: richmondmathew...@gmail.com > To: use-livecode@lists.runrev.com > Subject: 6.1 rc 1 on Linux (at least) > > I noticed this, yesterday, with the dp2 and it still holds

Re: 6.1 dp2 out now

On 23/06/13 22:53, Mark Wieder wrote: Richmond- Sunday, June 23, 2013, 12:26:43 PM, you wrote: That is still "not very good" that the thing wouldn't play ball from another disk. That should be pointed out to Linux users. Well, one of the problems with expanding the audience of the dp releases

Re: 6.1 dp2 out now

Richmond- Sunday, June 23, 2013, 12:26:43 PM, you wrote: > That is still "not very good" that the thing wouldn't play ball from > another disk. > That should be pointed out to Linux users. Well, one of the problems with expanding the audience of the dp releases is that people will install them.

Re: 6.1 dp2 out now

On 06/23/2013 10:03 PM, Richmond wrote: http://downloads.livecode.com/livecode/6_1_0/ Richmond. To which; having downloaded the Linux version of LC 6.1 dp 2 and attempted an install we get a "merry little message": "The installation was not successful. "Installer slave quit unexpectedly.

Re: 6.1

I'm not mad about it either, not surprising since I've never been that keen on the "template" syntax either. It was just a suggestion aimed at some sort of compatibility with existing syntax I've now got my browser hooked into the RSS feed for the forums, which removes one of my issues with u

Re: 6.1

On 15/06/2013, at 8:43 AM, Peter Haworth wrote: > Another idea i had on this was something similar to the "template" we > have now, so "the propertynamesStack", "the propertyNamesButton", etc. I > know nothing about the engine but would that make it any more feasible? I don't personally li

Re: 6.1

On Fri, Jun 14, 2013 at 2:21 PM, Monte Goulding wrote: > I think he's talking about a propertyNames function rather than the > properties. Note that I don't think it's possible to have the propertyNames > and the propertyNames of objectRef... I might look into it but really think > it would be ea

Re: 6.1

On 06/14/2013 04:12 PM, Peter Haworth wrote: do the forums have RSS feeds? There is also a subscribe by email feature including digest options. You can subscribe to individual forums at the bottom of each forum page or choose digest options at http://forums.runrev.com/phpBB2/ucp.php?i=20

Re: 6.1

http://forums.runrev.com/viewtopic.php?f=66&t=14818&p=78520#p78520 -- Mark Wieder mwie...@ahsoftware.net ___ use-livecode mailing list use-livecode@lists.runrev.com Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription pr

Re: 6.1

On 6/14/13 4:12 PM, Peter Haworth wrote: Don't remember but do the forums have RSS feeds? Yes, they do now. It isn't great but at least you get the messages. You can set it up in the forum prefs. If you decide to respond to a post, you'll end up back on the web site. -- Jacqueline Landman G

Re: 6.1

On 06/14/2013 04:12 PM, Peter Haworth wrote: do the forums have RSS feeds? There is one feed for the whole forum: http://forums.runrev.com/phpBB2/feed.php ___ use-livecode mailing list use-livecode@lists.runrev.com Please visit this url to subscrib

Re: 6.1

On Fri, Jun 14, 2013 at 1:43 PM, Mark Wieder wrote: > Two things I don't get: > > 1. why are you continuing this discussion here instead of in the properties > topic on the forum? > > 2. what does including synonyms in the list of properties deliver? You > really want "the properties" to return "

Re: 6.1

On 15/06/2013, at 6:43 AM, Mark Wieder wrote: > 2. what does including synonyms in the list of properties deliver? You > really want "the properties" to return "backcolor" as well as > "backgroundcolor"? With the same value? I don't. Not listing synonyms in the > properties list is not the same

Re: 6.1

Don't remember but do the forums have RSS feeds? Pete lcSQL Software On Fri, Jun 14, 2013 at 11:07 AM, Mike Bonner wrote: > I read the posts on the forum, and don't have access to the dev list so > even though i'm not able to contribute it lets me see some of whats going

Re: 6.1

Peter Haworth writes: > I would also like to suggest that we should think twice about excluding > synonyms or any other category of property. Excluding them means there's a > brick wall between them and anyone who would like to get them. I'm not > saying they should always be returned, just tha

Re: 6.1

On 15/06/2013, at 2:31 AM, Peter Haworth wrote: > As far as I can tell, everyone who has posted on the forums is on the > developers list. In fact, discussing engine/IDE changes on the developer > list would certainly get them more visibility than using the forums at the > moment; I haven't co

Re: 6.1

I read the posts on the forum, and don't have access to the dev list so even though i'm not able to contribute it lets me see some of whats going on to tweak and improve lc. I wouldn't mind the discussions being held on a "list" but if that happens my preference would be a new list so that I can a

Re: 6.1

Monte, I was just looking at bug # 8884 regarding missing properties and you had a post on there with a huge list of constant declarations for each property of each object. Couldn't that be used as the basis for the propertynames of objecttype? I would also like to suggest that we should think tw

Re: 6.1

As far as I can tell, everyone who has posted on the forums is on the developers list. In fact, discussing engine/IDE changes on the developer list would certainly get them more visibility than using the forums at the moment; I haven't counted but I doubt there are more than 10 people who have ma

Re: 6.1

The thing about the propertyNames of object type property is that basically it would just be maintaining a list in the engine rather than in the docs or IDE or something.. There's no real way to inspect an object type to see what properties it has... Other than one idea I have of parsing over th

Re: 6.1

Pete- Thursday, June 13, 2013, 1:06:13 PM, you wrote: > There's been discussion recently on what the purpose of the developers list > is. I think discussion of contributed engine and IDE changes is a perfect > use for it. I disagree because not everybody's on that list. I don't know what the fut

Re: 6.1

OK, I can live with adding those to my list of properties manually for now. Hopefully, the movement to improve "the propertynames" will gather steam so it won;t be necessary to use the properties t get a list of property names for an object. Pete lcSQL Software On Thu, Ju

Re: 6.1

On 14/06/2013, at 9:37 AM, Peter Haworth wrote: > Thanks Monte. That code also shows me the various synonyms for the color > properties. > > I don't understand the code well enough to figure this out so I have to ask > if this change will now return the unicode variants if they are not set? > R

Re: 6.1

Thanks Monte. That code also shows me the various synonyms for the color properties. I don't understand the code well enough to figure this out so I have to ask if this change will now return the unicode variants if they are not set? Remember, it's the names I'm interested in, not the values. P

Re: 6.1

On 14/06/2013, at 6:40 AM, Monte Goulding wrote: > the properties property has been broken and unattended for many years... the > whole point was to fix it not break it more! Here you go... https://github.com/montegoulding/livecode/commit/d3d8b294b9332f1e5e3f64f332247e29946d9c19 -- Monte Gou

Re: 6.1

On 14/06/2013, at 3:05 AM, "J. Landman Gay" wrote: > This is a good example of why contributors need to be especially careful not > to change or break existing behaviors. RunrevMark does a very good job of > monitoring that, but this one slipped by. It hasn't slipped by it just wasn't clearl

Re: 6.1

There's been discussion recently on what the purpose of the developers list is. I think discussion of contributed engine and IDE changes is a perfect use for it. Forums are fine but they require an active effort to go look at them whereas the email lists just turn up. I think that's been discusse

Re: 6.1

Richmond writes: > but I cannot understand why it might leave out some of those listed in 4.5 It sometimes helps to read a thread before responding. tl;dr: it's a work in progress. -- Mark Wieder mwie...@ahsoftware.net ___ use-livecode mailing l

Re: 6.1

On 06/12/2013 11:03 PM, Peter Haworth wrote: Just read the release notes for 6.1, some nice stuff in there - I really like the new pageRange property. However, I'm not so happy about the properties changes, at least until I check them out and see exactly what the changes are. It sounds like "th

Re: 6.1

Maybe one stage in discussion might be an entry or notice in some declaration web pages. It might be easy to find proposed changes and there might be some easy name for the list, like "green pages" or "bust notices". I have said too much for one not volunteering. Dar On Jun 13, 2013, at 1

Re: 6.1

On 6/13/13 11:38 AM, Peter Haworth wrote: I contributed to the discussion on the engine forum, as Monte is suggesting, but the change went ahead anyway, This is a good example of why contributors need to be especially careful not to change or break existing behaviors. RunrevMark does a very g

Re: 6.1

In response to the various posts. My need is to get the names of all the properties of any given object, not necessarily the values. As far as I know, the only way to do that is to get the properties of the object and then get the keys of the result. So yes, an extension to the propertynames as

Re: 6.1

Thanks for the positive feedback on the new pageRanges property :-)   Jan Schenkel. = Quartam Reports & PDF Library for LiveCode www.quartam.com = "As we grow older, we grow both wiser and more foolish at the same time." (La Rochefoucauld) - Original Message - > From: Peter

Re: 6.1

Perhaps, for me, a table in the dictionary or a good book would suffice for displaying all properties of an object. It doesn't have to be a function. There are advantages of a function that I might exploit, but I'm always reluctant to add new things. Dar On Jun 12, 2013, at 7:44 PM, Dar Sc

Re: 6.1

On 13/06/2013, at 11:32 AM, Richard Gaskin wrote: > like where you're going with that. It may also be helpful to be able to get > a list of just the names, without the values, for a given object, similar to > "the propertyNames" but limited to those relevant to the specified object: > > get

Re: 6.1

On 13/06/2013, at 11:21 AM, Peter Haworth wrote: > While not returning properties that aren't set may satisfy your needs, it > certainly doesn't fill my requirements. It's always been impossible to get > a full list of properties simply because some of them, and I don't mean > derived ones, were

Re: 6.1

On Jun 12, 2013, at 7:32 PM, Richard Gaskin wrote: > Whenever I'm teaching someone new to the language, one of the first questions > that comes up is "What properties are available for each object?" Yes! And since LIveCode is evolving, this is also nice for review by old hands. Dar

Re: 6.1

Peter Haworth wrote: Not returning them simply because they are not set is a step backwards. If there is a need for that, then let's have another form of "the properties" that indicates that, perhaps, "the working properties" or "the effective properties". I like where you're going with that.

Re: 6.1

I wrote a script which I ran in 6.1 that got the keys of the properties of the objects I mentioned then stored them in custom properties. Then I I loaded the stack in 5.5, got the keys of the properties again and stored them in a different set of custom properties. Finally, compared the two sets

Re: 6.1

Oh... and there were some read only properties being returned which it was documented not to do so they were removed. On 13/06/2013, at 10:07 AM, Monte Goulding wrote: > Also as I said before if properties aren't set then it doesn't return them. -- M E R Goulding Software development services

Re: 6.1

Where are these lists coming from? colors and patterns are now individual properties... you also can't have both a foreColor and a forePattern etc so it returns the one you have if you have one... Also as I said before if properties aren't set then it doesn't return them. On 13/06/2013, at 9:5

Re: 6.1

OK, well the wording of the release notes implies that some properties that were previously returned are no longer there, at least by my reading. I know some properties that were missing have been included in 6.1 and that's great. I did a quick test to compare the properties returned by 6.1 and 5

Re: 6.1

Monte Goulding writes: > That is precisely what I should have said You did. I just translated from the Tasmanian. -- Mark Wieder mwie...@ahsoftware.net ___ use-livecode mailing list use-livecode@lists.runrev.com Please visit this url to subs

Re: 6.1

On 13/06/2013, at 9:09 AM, Mark Wieder wrote: > Or rather, "label" will appear in the properties if the label can be > represented as ASCII, and you won't see "unicodelabel" in the list. > Otherwise "label" will not appear when you request the properties, and > "unicodelabel" will. That is prec

Re: 6.1

Yeah, sometimes you have to watch out for those of us who are tediously obtuse. I do get it now. On Jun 12, 2013, at 4:39 PM, Monte Goulding wrote: > > On 13/06/2013, at 7:58 AM, Dar Scott wrote: > >>> For example if you set the unicodeLabel to something which actually is >>> unicode th

Re: 6.1

Dar Scott writes: > > For example if you set the unicodeLabel to something which actually is unicode then it will return the > unicodeLabel otherwise it will return the label. > > Huh? Or rather, "label" will appear in the properties if the label can be represented as ASCII, and you won't see "

Re: 6.1

On 13/06/2013, at 7:58 AM, Dar Scott wrote: >> For example if you set the unicodeLabel to something which actually is >> unicode then it will return the unicodeLabel otherwise it will return the >> label. I realise now I should have said 'could not be represented as ascii' rather than 'actu

Re: 6.1

On 13/06/2013, at 7:58 AM, Dar Scott wrote: > > Huh? These properties are actually stored as UTF8 so when the properties is called it works out if it's ascii or not and returns label if it is. -- Monte Goulding M E R Goulding - software development services mergExt - There's an external for

Re: 6.1

On Jun 12, 2013, at 3:01 PM, Monte Goulding wrote: > For example if you set the unicodeLabel to something which actually is > unicode then it will return the unicodeLabel otherwise it will return the > label. Huh? Dar ___ use-livecode mailing list

Re: 6.1

On 13/06/2013, at 6:03 AM, Peter Haworth wrote: > However, I'm not so happy about the properties changes, at least until I > check them out and see exactly what the changes are. Sorry to hear that.. you can read all the forum posts about the development of these changes if you like so you unde

Re: 6.1

On 6/12/13 3:03 PM, Peter Haworth wrote: It sounds like "the properties" doesn't return all the properties it used to return, only those needed to recreate it. That's great for those who want to recreate an object by maybe not so great for folks who want to use it for other purposes. It's the