> -----Original Message-----
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On
> Behalf Of Sean Wilson
> Why are you anti-globalisation? ;)
nah.
> I'm not clear about your needs - you want to instantiate some
> parent scripts
> as child objects and talk to/use these objects.
Yes.
> In order to communicate with
> them you need a reference to the object.
But using only ONE list of object references
created from a single parent script.
(without declaring it global)
> The question is: where to store
> these references so that you can get them. You don't want to use global
> variables and you don't want to drop them in the actorList. Why
> do either of
> these approaches defeat the purpose?
data encapsulation. as much as possible
i would like to avoid a lot of
global values floating around.
having many movie handlers is hard
to maintain and debug.
> Is it appropriate to make
> these objects
> ancestors of behaviors? Can you daisy-chain them all together using
> ancestorship so that you need store a reference to only the last
> child? Even
> if you set up mutual references between all of them, if you don't keep a
> reference to at least one of them then they're lost-in-RAM somewhere.
> What about using an uninstantiated parent script for your storage. If you
> want to store this info, it has to go somewhere (accessible).
it has to go somewhere... somewhere private.;)
I'll take a look at Irv's article though.
Thanks again for your time.
regards,
John Erazo
[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!]
