hh wrote:
>> Richard G. wrote:
>> What's missing is support for the universal method by which we can
>> obtain property info, "the properties" function.
>
> In order to work with a widget you have to know what the single
> properties do.
That is true of all objects of all properties.
> I can't see what should be the purpose of such a "full list".
Consider the list I included in my reply to Ali, and spend some time
experimenting. LC's associative arrays are very powerful and very
flexible. With union and intersect, even more so. All sorts of rapid
object styling, replication, serializing for transport, and so much more
becomes trivial and fun.
Sure, I could write my own functions to do this. And if I'm the only
one who's interested it wouldn't take me long.
But the ease and power of this way of working with "the properties" has
become second nature to me because many years ago Kevin had the insight
to request that array from the then-engine-maintainer. If he hadn't
asked for that, I might still be stuck in the ancient xTalk way of doing
these things, manually maintaining lists of properties and slavishly
applying them one at a time in line after line of long blocks of code.
So I'm good either way. I'm just thinking about the next generation of
LiveCode scripters.
If we abandon "the properties" as the universal array representation for
all types, we either lose the value of that function by making it into a
"sometimes" thing, or reduce the value of widgets by not treating them
as "real" objects.
--
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
