On Aug 29, 2014, at 6:58 AM, Trevor DeVore <li...@mangomultimedia.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 26, 2014 at 10:09 PM, Richard Gaskin <ambassa...@fourthworld.com >> wrote: > >> >> Is there some reason I've overlooked as to why "send" allows timers but >> "dispatch" doesn't? > > > I don't know if there is a reason dispatch doesn't have timers, but what if > "send" was just updated to support "with"? If "with" was present then we > could do this: > > send "someCommand" to someObject with param1, param2 in 10 milliseconds > > The thing is, dispatch is useful if A) you want to know if the command was > handled, B) you want to send a message and you don't care if it is handled > (the engine doesn't report an error if "someCommand" isn't defined > anywhere), or C) you want to call a command/function outside of the message > path. I see this as a much improved version of the 'send "someCommand"' > form of 'send'. > > Given how dispatch works, I see 'send is' as being what you use if you want > to execute some code after the current event loop has finished executing. > The downside is that the syntax stinks. But if the syntax were updated so > that it supported the same form as dispatch then I think it would be great. > I imagine the engine could also improve the speed to be on par with > dispatch as the engine would know that "someCommand" wouldn't contain any > variables that had to be processed (e.g. "someCommand param1, param2"). +1 I've often thought 'send [command] with [params]' would be a great enhancement. There's always a little apprehension and confusion over whether the variable names in quotes in 'send [command param,param]' will be parsed properly. Devin Devin Asay Office of Digital Humanities Brigham Young University _______________________________________________ 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
