Ben- Sunday, September 25, 2011, 11:23:40 AM, you wrote:
> Surely the point is that all those operations should be - and AFAICT most are > - implemented with suitable checks to make sure there is a UI; and that the > assertion is revealing one which hasn't been. I just wondered if anyone else > had come across this before and found out which operation it is that has this > problem. I think that's exactly the point. And only the rev team will have access to the assert statements in the code, so only a QCC entry will clue them in to the fact that there's an errant check in there somewhere. I haven't seen that one but I haven't tried to do what you're doing. -- -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 preferences: http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode
