Re: How to suppress the Modal Purge dialog? -- Name space conflict
Sorry, right you mentioned that in one of the paragraphs. but there is a way to get all the stacks opened... but making sure that before a stack is processed, the name is returned to what it must be to be exported and work. Just making the assumption that you can only process one open stack at a time. Or are the stacks all running code outside of being "opened"? On Sun, Sep 19, 2021 at 6:12 PM Tom Glod wrote: > Hmmm...first thing that comes to mind. > > Can you check if the same name is already open and then rename the > existing one before you try to open the second one? > > > > On Sun, Sep 19, 2021 at 5:54 PM R.H. via use-livecode < > use-livecode@lists.runrev.com> wrote: > >> Hi everyone >> >> I have a need to programmatically open about 200 stacks, do something, and >> the close them. In this case, for documentation reasons, I take a >> screenshot from every stack, every card, and every substack and their >> cards >> to export it. >> >> My problem is that there are number of stacks that have the same stack >> name >> (apart from a different file name), and loading them into memory (opening >> them) sometimes creates a naming conflict if a stack with the same name >> already is loaded -- and these are library stacks, etc. >> >> The known modal dialog appears to allow to purge such stack. This dialog >> seems to appear before even any error message could be intercepted. >> >> Can this purging be automated and the dialog be suppressed? I found no way >> (using the "try" construct, locking messages, etc.) to suppress this >> dialog >> and just do the purge from script. >> >> I assume that it could eventually be done messing with the strack in the >> IDE that generates the dialog. But I do not really want to do this for >> principle reasons. >> >> Another way is to make sure that there are never same stack names (which >> are only known after opening), but that is almost impossible to control >> and >> might break certain stack relationships -- and I am not just talking about >> my own stacks, but also stacks from third parties, and opens sources. >> >> Of course, I can make sure that there are is never more than the main >> stack >> in memory before opening any other stack -- except the IDE stacks. But in >> my special case this is not a good solution as the app relies heavily on a >> number of open stacks. At least, I am still trying to find a better >> solution. >> >> Maybe a good feature for future would be to support name spaces as in >> other >> development environments so that such naming conflicts may be avoided. >> Stacks and other resources could then share a name space, and then there >> is >> only the need to have unique names within such name space. Some people >> (including myself) already mimic this using prefixes to a name. But that >> is >> just a starting point and difficult to control. The concept of name spaces >> goes beyond that. >> >> Any ideas ? ))) >> >> have fun... >> Roland >> ___ >> 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 >> > > > -- > Tom Glod > Founder & Developer > MakeShyft R.D.A (www.makeshyft.com) > Mobile:647.562.9411 > -- Tom Glod Founder & Developer MakeShyft R.D.A (www.makeshyft.com) Mobile:647.562.9411 ___ 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
Re: How to suppress the Modal Purge dialog? -- Name space conflict
Hmmm...first thing that comes to mind. Can you check if the same name is already open and then rename the existing one before you try to open the second one? On Sun, Sep 19, 2021 at 5:54 PM R.H. via use-livecode < use-livecode@lists.runrev.com> wrote: > Hi everyone > > I have a need to programmatically open about 200 stacks, do something, and > the close them. In this case, for documentation reasons, I take a > screenshot from every stack, every card, and every substack and their cards > to export it. > > My problem is that there are number of stacks that have the same stack name > (apart from a different file name), and loading them into memory (opening > them) sometimes creates a naming conflict if a stack with the same name > already is loaded -- and these are library stacks, etc. > > The known modal dialog appears to allow to purge such stack. This dialog > seems to appear before even any error message could be intercepted. > > Can this purging be automated and the dialog be suppressed? I found no way > (using the "try" construct, locking messages, etc.) to suppress this dialog > and just do the purge from script. > > I assume that it could eventually be done messing with the strack in the > IDE that generates the dialog. But I do not really want to do this for > principle reasons. > > Another way is to make sure that there are never same stack names (which > are only known after opening), but that is almost impossible to control and > might break certain stack relationships -- and I am not just talking about > my own stacks, but also stacks from third parties, and opens sources. > > Of course, I can make sure that there are is never more than the main stack > in memory before opening any other stack -- except the IDE stacks. But in > my special case this is not a good solution as the app relies heavily on a > number of open stacks. At least, I am still trying to find a better > solution. > > Maybe a good feature for future would be to support name spaces as in other > development environments so that such naming conflicts may be avoided. > Stacks and other resources could then share a name space, and then there is > only the need to have unique names within such name space. Some people > (including myself) already mimic this using prefixes to a name. But that is > just a starting point and difficult to control. The concept of name spaces > goes beyond that. > > Any ideas ? ))) > > have fun... > Roland > ___ > 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 > -- Tom Glod Founder & Developer MakeShyft R.D.A (www.makeshyft.com) Mobile:647.562.9411 ___ 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
How to suppress the Modal Purge dialog? -- Name space conflict
Hi everyone I have a need to programmatically open about 200 stacks, do something, and the close them. In this case, for documentation reasons, I take a screenshot from every stack, every card, and every substack and their cards to export it. My problem is that there are number of stacks that have the same stack name (apart from a different file name), and loading them into memory (opening them) sometimes creates a naming conflict if a stack with the same name already is loaded -- and these are library stacks, etc. The known modal dialog appears to allow to purge such stack. This dialog seems to appear before even any error message could be intercepted. Can this purging be automated and the dialog be suppressed? I found no way (using the "try" construct, locking messages, etc.) to suppress this dialog and just do the purge from script. I assume that it could eventually be done messing with the strack in the IDE that generates the dialog. But I do not really want to do this for principle reasons. Another way is to make sure that there are never same stack names (which are only known after opening), but that is almost impossible to control and might break certain stack relationships -- and I am not just talking about my own stacks, but also stacks from third parties, and opens sources. Of course, I can make sure that there are is never more than the main stack in memory before opening any other stack -- except the IDE stacks. But in my special case this is not a good solution as the app relies heavily on a number of open stacks. At least, I am still trying to find a better solution. Maybe a good feature for future would be to support name spaces as in other development environments so that such naming conflicts may be avoided. Stacks and other resources could then share a name space, and then there is only the need to have unique names within such name space. Some people (including myself) already mimic this using prefixes to a name. But that is just a starting point and difficult to control. The concept of name spaces goes beyond that. Any ideas ? ))) have fun... Roland ___ 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
Re: LC IDE Menu suddenly is slow / responds slowly
Things seem better when the message window is closed . I also disabled all the script autocompletion options. So its one or more of those things. Will test more later. On Fri, Sep 17, 2021 at 1:37 PM J. Landman Gay via use-livecode < use-livecode@lists.runrev.com> wrote: > Have you checked the pendingMessages? A while ago Swami posted a slowdown > that showed dozens and dozens of repeating IDE messages. > > -- > Jacqueline Landman Gay | jac...@hyperactivesw.com > HyperActive Software | http://www.hyperactivesw.com > On September 17, 2021 3:28:12 AM matthias rebbe via use-livecode > wrote: > > > Hi, > > > > i am currently noticing a massive slow down of the LC 9.6.4 IDE menu. > Not > > right away after opening Livecode IDE, but after some time of usage. > > I never noticed that in 9.6.3. Clicking on an main menu entry takes then > > about 2 or 3 seconds until i can see the submenu > > > > But I am not sure if this is really only an LC problem or due to the > fact > > that i upgraded to Big Sur around the same time as LC 9.6.4 was released. > > > > Currently i only notice this slow down of the menu in 9.6.4 and i am not > > able to see this in 9.6.3. But maybe i am a little bit to impatient and > my > > testing is too short. > > > > In the activity monitor i cannot see anything unusual. Now large memory > > consumption of LC and no high CPU usage. > > > > After a restart of LC the IDE menu behaves normal, but some time later > it > > slows down. > > > > > > Is anyone else experiencing the same or a similar behavior? > > > > > > Regards, > > > > Matthias > > > > > > > > > > ___ > > 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 > > > > > ___ > 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 > -- Tom Glod Founder & Developer MakeShyft R.D.A (www.makeshyft.com) Mobile:647.562.9411 ___ 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
Re: IAP in App Store
Even a note in the documentation would help. I spent two weeks trying to figure out the problem. Was it my store setup? The iPhone? My script, which was based on the lesson example? Did I set up my store products wrong? Just where should I look? By the time I posted here I was a walking mass of frustration and my husband knew to hide in a closet. -- Jacqueline Landman Gay | jac...@hyperactivesw.com HyperActive Software | http://www.hyperactivesw.com On September 19, 2021 2:24:18 AM Curry Kenworthy via use-livecode wrote: Jacqueline: > If the third param is omitted, the script compiles okay > but apparently aborts with no error message > and no information when the app runs on the device. Hey LC Team: This may be not merely a bug, but also a "bad habit" in coding practice. A habit that leads to multiple bugs. I've seen similar "aborts" that halt execution but otherwise fail without warning or info. The LCS equivalent would be a tendency to overuse "exit to top" in situations where a "return" or an error bailout would be more appropriate. Perhaps only intended as a temporary placeholder and forgotten, but either way, a better habit would reduce the number of future bugs/glitches that follow this pattern. Thanks Best wishes, Curry Kenworthy Custom Software Development "Better Methods, Better Results" LiveCode Training and Consulting http://livecodeconsulting.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 ___ 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
Re: Android SDK lesson
Hi Lagi I'd suggest following the Lesson as the most straightforward route. Let us know if that doesn't work. Regards, Bernard On Sat, Sep 18, 2021 at 8:17 PM Lagi Pittas via use-livecode < use-livecode@lists.runrev.com> wrote: > > I will look for a thread by you and expect that it should be the latest > unless you say otherwise - you didn't say if it works on the latest yet > though - which version of indy should I use? > > Regards Lagi > > > ___ 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
Re: IAP in App Store
Jacqueline: > If the third param is omitted, the script compiles okay > but apparently aborts with no error message > and no information when the app runs on the device. Hey LC Team: This may be not merely a bug, but also a "bad habit" in coding practice. A habit that leads to multiple bugs. I've seen similar "aborts" that halt execution but otherwise fail without warning or info. The LCS equivalent would be a tendency to overuse "exit to top" in situations where a "return" or an error bailout would be more appropriate. Perhaps only intended as a temporary placeholder and forgotten, but either way, a better habit would reduce the number of future bugs/glitches that follow this pattern. Thanks Best wishes, Curry Kenworthy Custom Software Development "Better Methods, Better Results" LiveCode Training and Consulting http://livecodeconsulting.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
