Hi.
Doesn't "delete grp yourGroup" work? -----Original Message----- From: Peter Bogdanoff <bogdan...@me.com> To: How to use LiveCode <use-livecode@lists.runrev.com> Sent: Tue, Aug 21, 2012 2:35 pm Subject: Re: The Owner of a background group I've seen this. Is there a way to delete a group completely from the stack? I'm working with a stack that has over a dozen unused groups. It is a legacy from when it was a HyperCard stack. The unused groups aren't causing a problem other than there are many with duplicate names. Can these be deleted? Peter Bogdanoff UCLA On Aug 21, 2012, at 8:50 AM, Bob Sneidar wrote: > Hmmm now that I am thinking about it with a full cup of coffee surging > through my veins, I seem to remember Jacque mentioning in the past that a background group really belongs to the stack as a whole from a certain point of view, although as Craig says, for the purposes of the message path it has to belong to some card, and may as well be the current card. > > To demonstrate the idea that a background group really belongs to the stack, create a group on a card, then delete the card. Group goes away and cannot be placed. Now create a group on a card, and set the background behavior to true. Delete the card. Notice that the new group still exists to be placed even though it doesn't exist on ANY card anymore! > > Groups belong to stacks, but cards are in the message path when the group is placed on them. I think this is the way to think about it. > > Bob > > > On Aug 20, 2012, at 5:57 PM, Peter Haworth wrote: > >> I agree with that, that's why I thought the behavior I was seeing was so >> weird. I started using a fresh copy of the stack and all now works as >> expected so there must have been some corruption in the version of the >> stack I was using. >> >> There might be an existing way to find out the "progenitor" - the cardNames >> of a group gives a list of all the card names that group appears on and, >> without exhaustive testing, it appears that the first line of that list >> might be the progenitor. >> >> Pete >> lcSQL Software <http://www.lcsql.com> >> >> >> >> On Mon, Aug 20, 2012 at 5:28 PM, <dunb...@aol.com> wrote: >> >>> Bob. >>> >>> >>> It seems more natural to me that the owner is the current card. It makes >>> the message hierarchy consistent. >>> >>> >>> The "progenitor" could be a property as you suggest, but since this is not >>> native, just set a custom property of the group to the id of the card that >>> gave it birth. You then get everything you could ask for. >>> >>> >>> >>> Craig >>> >> _______________________________________________ >> 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 > > > _______________________________________________ > 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 _______________________________________________ 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 _______________________________________________ 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
