SO . . .
there is a 'political divide' over those who think that multiple
lockscreens followed by multiple
unlockings is a good thing, and those who think it is a bad thing.
What to do ?
Well, here's a thought . . .
Would things not be easier to understand if each subsequent lockscreen
was signalled in some
sort of way so one can keep track of all the nested lockscreens
-------------------------------------
Tangential Burble follows.
-------------------------------------
This makes me think of why I fell in love with SWITCH and CASE, after
developing cluster headaches
over embedded FOR . . . NEXT loops . . . .
. . . oh, Dear, I suddenly remembered GOSUB in some variety of BASIC . .
. . running for the toilet.
-------------------------------------
Enough of that.
-------------------------------------
At present (as I'm sure 99% of the readers of this Use-List already
know) each lockscreen
is initiated like this:
set the lockscreen to true
and, as we have all recently become, almost painfully, aware, you can do
that as many times
as you like, but then have to do
set the lockscreen to false
just as many times to reverse the process
---------------------------------------
How about being able to give each LOCKSCREEN command a name:
set lockscreen "A" to true
set lockscreen "B" to true
it may look a bit odd at first, but it would make keeping track of
multiple screen lockings a whole lot simpler.
AND what about
set the lockscreens to false
where 'lockscreens' would unlock all screen lockings at once?
---------------------------------------
Richmond.
_______________________________________________
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
