Re: setting existing customproperties

2013-08-01 Thread J. Landman Gay
On 8/1/13 6:57 PM, Dr. Hawkins wrote: I watched in the property inspector, but apparently I have to leave that view for the inspector to actually show the change. Oh that. Yeah. No dynamic updating. -- Jacqueline Landman Gay | jac...@hyperactivesw.com HyperActive Software

Re: setting existing customproperties

2013-08-01 Thread Dr. Hawkins
On Thu, Aug 1, 2013 at 3:05 PM, J. Landman Gay wrote: > I set properties on stacks all the time, it works exactly like setting them > on a field or any other object. You don't need to use an array unless you > want to store an actual array without combining it first. > > What happened when it fail

Re: setting existing customproperties

2013-08-01 Thread Peter Haworth
On Thu, Aug 1, 2013 at 2:50 PM, Dr. Hawkins wrote: > (e.g., I have some fields with a custom "textClr" property from typos . . . Alex Tweedly's explicitProperties plugin will help protect you from misspelled custom property names. Pete lcSQL Software

Re: setting existing customproperties

2013-08-01 Thread J. Landman Gay
On 8/1/13 4:50 PM, Dr. Hawkins wrote: I've been setting custom properties of fields willy-nilly for some time now without a problem. I tried on stacks today, and failed. Reading the dictionary, it appears that I should be using an array. Is being able to set a custom property of a field a bug,

Re: setting existing customproperties

2013-08-01 Thread dunbarx
Richard. Something amiss. Setting and getting custom properties of fields is unremarkable. Craig -Original Message- From: Dr. Hawkins To: How to use LiveCode Sent: Thu, Aug 1, 2013 5:50 pm Subject: setting existing customproperties I've been setting custom properties of f

setting existing customproperties

2013-08-01 Thread Dr. Hawkins
I've been setting custom properties of fields willy-nilly for some time now without a problem. I tried on stacks today, and failed. Reading the dictionary, it appears that I should be using an array. Is being able to set a custom property of a field a bug, or am I missing something here? (e.g.,