Peter Haworth wrote:
> Sounds like a great idea to me. I seem to remember that one of
> dispatch/send is blocking and the other isn't. Could that be a
> possible reason for the lack of "in" with dispatch?
Both are blocking when called immediately; "send" can become on-blocking
by specifying a later time to send the message.
dunbarx wrote:
> "Send' can, er, send parameters as well as a command. In a button
> script:
>
> on mouseUp
> send "putArg" && random(99) && random(99) && "XYZ" to me in 5
> end mouseUp
>
> on putArg var
> put var
> end putArg
>
> You get pairs of random numbers and the text as well. All parameters
> come across as a batch.
>
> Or you can separate in the usual way:
> on mouseUp
> send "putArg" && random(99) & "," & any char of "ABCD" to me in 5
> end mouseUp
>
> on putArg var,var2
> put var2 --or the first one or both
> end putArg
Yes, both "send" and "dispatch" allow passing arguments, but as we saw
with yesterday's forum post it seems unintuitive to have to put quotes
around things that aren't strings, making "dispatch" feel more natural.
Of course in a certain Zen sort of way even variable names are
technically strings on some level, but having to quote them to pass them
with "send" is something I see a lot of newcomers guess wrong.
FWIW I submitted a request to have "dispatch" extended with "in" for timers:
<http://quality.runrev.com/show_bug.cgi?id=13287>
--
Richard Gaskin
Fourth World Systems
Software Design and Development for the Desktop, Mobile, and the Web
____________________________________________________________________
ambassa...@fourthworld.com http://www.FourthWorld.com
_______________________________________________
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
