> On 8 Nov 2015, at 4:13 am, Richard Gaskin <ambassa...@fourthworld.com> wrote: > > This works: > > command SomeTimer > DoSomething > send "SomeTimer" to me in 500 millisecs > end SomeTimer > > This doesn't work: > > private command SomeTimer > DoSomething > send "SomeTimer" to me in 500 millisecs > end SomeTimer > > I can kinda understand why, but I'd like to be able to manage a timer from > within a library without exposing the timer to other scripts. > > Anyone know of a trick for that? > > I suppose I could look at line -2 of the executionContexts, but that feels > "unclean".
Hi Richard I had a look in the source and I don’t think it would be all that tricky to upgrade send so you can send private handlers from the same object. Send without a timer is easy as you already have a handle to the execution context which gives you a handle to the calling object. Send in time is a little tricker but not overly so. It just involves adding the calling object in a number of calls and also to the internal pending messages data structure. I guess we could add an extra caller object reference item to the pendingMessages as a result. The engine uses the same mechanism to send a lot of messages so you would need to handle the caller being nil meaning an engine message. Cheers Monte _______________________________________________ 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
