You could think of it as call.
The difference is that it's a "synchronous" call. That means, that you
don't return from the tell until the command is complete.
This is as opposed to what would be an "asynchronous" call. If the 'tell'
worked that way, and posted a message to the queue for the stage for the
stage to do when it had a moment, in its own context, that would be
true. But the tell call is a synchronous call, and it doesn't return until
the work has been done. If the work is to delete the object doing the
tell, you have yourself a problem, 'cause there's nothing to return to.
- Tab
At 10:54 AM 3/24/01 -0800, Kerry Thompson wrote:
>>No, actually the main point is that when the call unwinds, it has to come
>>back to a different window or the stage. If it comes back to the MIAW,
>>you're dead.
>
>Perhaps the better part of valor is knowing when to yield :-)
>
>Tab, Mark, and Jakob, you have made convincing arguments. I wasn't
>thinking of "Tell" as equivalent to "call," but it makes sense--especially
>when you all three say essentially the same thing.
>
>I ran into something similar earlier in my Director career--if I remember
>right, I was issuing a "call" to a handler that issues a "play frame"
>command. I have the source code archived, so I don't remember exactly what
>it was, but it caused a frustrating bug because Director returned
>control--popped an address off the stack--to a place I wasn't expecting.
>
>Which is a long way of saying yeah, you guys make sense--it looks like
>you're right.
>
>So, don't let me confuse you, Karina :-)
>
>Cordially,
>Kerry Thompson
>Learning Network
[To remove yourself from this list, or to change to digest mode, go to
http://www.penworks.com/LUJ/lingo-l.cgi To post messages to the list,
email [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Problems, email [EMAIL PROTECTED])
Lingo-L is for learning and helping with programming Lingo. Thanks!]
