On 08/30/2015 02:24 AM, Peter TB Brett wrote:
This already exists! It's called the Business Application Framework.
:P
--
Mark Wieder
ahsoftw...@gmail.com
___
use-livecode mailing list
use-livecode@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscri
I have done this already in 2012 with my plugin:
> With this arrangement, using git and external editors becomes easier to
> integrate with the added benefit that one could implement a 2 save option,
> saving a GUI version and a script only version of your stacks to different
> locations at the s
On 2015-08-30 10:43, AndyP wrote:
Script only looks interesting, and I'm wondering if this concept could
be
extended further?
If there was a mechanism to seamlessly switch between script only and
GUI
construction, so that one could build with the GUI and as one builds a
companion script only
Script only looks interesting, and I'm wondering if this concept could be
extended further?
If there was a mechanism to seamlessly switch between script only and GUI
construction, so that one could build with the GUI and as one builds a
companion script only representation of your build is created
Ah yeah I wasn't thinking it would even appear there.
Sent from my iPhone
> On 30 Aug 2015, at 6:38 pm, Ali Lloyd wrote:
>
> The only place I see it as higher risk than a command is in the property
> inspector. But perhaps making it not modifiable from the property inspector
> is enough insulat
The only place I see it as higher risk than a command is in the property
inspector. But perhaps making it not modifiable from the property inspector
is enough insulation.
On Sun, Aug 30, 2015 at 9:16 AM Monte Goulding
wrote:
> I guess so although that also has the same risk as a writable scriptO
I guess so although that also has the same risk as a writable scriptOnly
property so it seems to me we might as well run with the property and some
documented warnings about losing objects and custom properties when setting it
to true.
The other use case (which is similar) is someone transition
Ah yes, I see what you mean. It would be very handy for that case. Another
option would be a variant of the save command, like
save pStack as [(script only | binary) stack] pFilename
On Sun, 30 Aug 2015 at 00:28, Monte Goulding
wrote:
>
> > On 30 Aug 2015, at 8:24 am, Peter TB Brett
> wrote:
>
> On 30 Aug 2015, at 8:24 am, Peter TB Brett wrote:
>
> I *think* Mark will be back in the office on Monday, so he'll probably see
> this exchange
>
> At the moment I usually treat normal stacks and script-only stacks as totally
> different things. I think of normal stacks as places for UI a
I agree that any scriptOnly property should be read-only, thus eliminating
any potential dire consequences. After all, you can easily lossily
scriptify a stack by creating a new script-only and setting the script to
another one.
Whilst I agree that the main use of script only stacks should be for
On 2015-08-29 23:05, Monte Goulding wrote:
On 29 Aug 2015, at 10:22 pm, Peter TB Brett
wrote:
This looks like the sort of thing that's best off being looked at by
Mark Waddingham. Unfortunately my last day before my annual holiday
is the day before he gets back from his annual holiday, so I
11 matches
Mail list logo
