I agree with Richmond. I cannot think of a case where I would want to lock a screen multiple times and then incrementally unlock the screen, knowing that the screen is still locked! I can think of examples where I would want to lock then unlock the screen while the script was still executing, but not multiple times stacked.
Bob On Sep 20, 2012, at 8:00 AM, Mark Wieder wrote: > Richmond- > > Thursday, September 20, 2012, 1:29:32 AM, you wrote: > >> That 'multiple lockscreen' thing does seem illogical and/or daft, and it >> might not be a bad thing if it were changed so that 'locked' meant >> 'locked once' and was not ambiguous. > > It's actually quite useful as is. It means I can write smaller > routines that fiddle with the screen, locking before and unlocking > afterwards. I can then string these routines together in a larger > construct, locking before and unlocking after, without needing to > worry about the screen suddenly popping to life (and slowing things > down) in the middle. Remembering to unlock after you've locked isn't > any more cumbersome than remembering to close parentheses or quotes. > > -- > -Mark Wieder > mwie...@ahsoftware.net > > > _______________________________________________ > 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
