The only place I see it as higher risk than a command is in the property inspector. But perhaps making it not modifiable from the property inspector is enough insulation.
On Sun, Aug 30, 2015 at 9:16 AM Monte Goulding <mo...@sweattechnologies.com> wrote: > I guess so although that also has the same risk as a writable scriptOnly > property so it seems to me we might as well run with the property and some > documented warnings about losing objects and custom properties when setting > it to true. > > The other use case (which is similar) is someone transitioning to script > only stacks as it would save a significant amount of creating new stacks > with different names, cutting, pasting, deleting old stack, renaming and > saving... > > I think in both cases the writable scriptOnly property is simpler. It > probably only needs to be an IDE engine property as I can't imagine a use > case for it in a standalone. > > Cheers > > Monte > > Sent from my iPhone > > > On 30 Aug 2015, at 5:19 pm, Ali Lloyd <ali.ll...@livecode.com> wrote: > > > > Ah yes, I see what you mean. It would be very handy for that case. > Another > > option would be a variant of the save command, like > > > > save pStack as [(script only | binary) stack] pFilename > > _______________________________________________ > 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
