Recently, Mark Wieder wrote: >> I'm sure you have good reasons but I'm curious about why you would want to >> classify a handler as private if you know you will need to access it from >> outside the script that it's in? > > Thanks. You beat me to it. This has been bothering me all day. Knowing > Scott, I'm sure there's a good reason, but I can't imagine what it > could be. Now I'm watching my inbox waiting for the mystery to > unravel.
A good point. In the big scheme of things, all the hoop jumping is probably too much work. But FWIW, I have a bunch of handlers in a front script that are private to prevent any unwanted triggering -- the end use is a set of tools for LiveCode developers in the LC IDE. There are some occasions, however, where I need to trigger some of the handlers from different points in the tools that aren't part of the frontscript, so I'm trying to work around that. I was thinking I could use reallyLongHandlerNamesThatNoOneWouldEverUse, but then I thought it might be more useful to make one generic command to handle any need. Like I explained, it might not be the best way to arrange things. Sorry this been bothering you all day. :-) Regards, Scott Rossi Creative Director Tactile Media, UX Design _______________________________________________ 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
