2012/9/20 J. Landman Gay <jac...@hyperactivesw.com>: > On 9/20/12 10:30 AM, Bob Sneidar wrote: >> >> 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. > > > > It's necessary often. The useful behavior dates back 25 years. When a called > handler needs to lock and unlock the screen it shouldn't need to worry about > whether it was called from a handler while the screen is unlocked, or one > where the screen is already locked and shouldn't be changed.
+1 Another context is using a third party library which does use the lockscreen. As a user of this library, it will always works whatever your calling handler has locked or not the screen. Thierry _______________________________________________ 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
