On 08/04/2018 11:55 AM, Mark Waddingham via use-livecode wrote:
Remember that this isn't a unique problem to LiveCode - script only stacks (particularly how we've grown to use them) are akin to C source files / projects (mainly because that is abstractly what they are /
I do realize that. But now that we've opened that can of worms I don't think we can just go on ignoring it. And the difference between LC script-only stacks and C source files is that you don't get to distribute a single compiled object in LC... you end up with a mainstack and several text files to distribute, and they need to stay together and in the same relative position. It's messy.
Perhaps 'Show IDE Stacks in lists' (or whatever it is called) has become far far too blunt an instrument...
What I was thinking.
For example, the PB could offer a new 'top-level' - which is project. A project being defined by a set of stacks which share a common name prefix...
Well, when the PB was first proposed, that's where I thought this was heading.
One thing I'd like, since you're asking (place this in the 'watch what you ask for' category) is to be able to use script-only stacks as substacks. That way I could edit them with a text editor and still work with only a single unified object. And the PB would hide the component stacks within the mainstack until I chose to examine them, the same way that substacks now work. Obviously there are script-only stacks that would not need to be substacks, but that's no different from the way stacks and substacks work now.
And btw, thanks for your input on this list. On a Saturday even. Much appreciated.
-- Mark Wieder ahsoftw...@gmail.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
