Ah yes, I see what you mean. It would be very handy for that case. Another option would be a variant of the save command, like
save pStack as [(script only | binary) stack] pFilename On Sun, 30 Aug 2015 at 00:28, Monte Goulding <[email protected]> wrote: > > > On 30 Aug 2015, at 8:24 am, Peter TB Brett <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > > I *think* Mark will be back in the office on Monday, so he'll probably > see this exchange > > > > At the moment I usually treat normal stacks and script-only stacks as > totally different things. I think of normal stacks as places for UI and > trivial glue code, and script-only stacks as places for complex handler > libraries and behaviours. They have different filenames too (.livecode vs > .livecodescript). My instinct is that adding a way to switch a stack back > and forth between normal and script-only isn't very intuitive, and could > cause "dire consequences" as you suggest. On the other hand, having a > *read only* scriptOnly property (or some equivalent) sounds like it could > be pretty useful. > > The only use case I could think of for making it a writable property was > for the standalone builder to support password protecting them by making > them stacks but you could work around this by supporting password > protection on script only stacks I guess or as Ali suggests just copy from > one stack to the other, delete the original from memory and then set the > name and save… Mind you we can do dangerous things with our code all the > time so I don’t really think we need an nanny for this one... just some > docs. > > > > >>> Or just submit a PR on GitHub, that'll make sure it doesn't get > forgotten about. ;-) > >> I actually had some PRs that were forgotten about although I think > >> both of them have now or will in the future at least become irrelevant > >> because of widgets. > > > > Oops, sorry. I shouldn't let these things slip through the cracks. > It's a lot easier now that there's a defined process for accepting > contributions! The processes for community contributors and LiveCode > employees are now pretty much the same -- the only two differences are that > 1) we still can't accept binary stack changes directly (sorry :-/) and 2) > employees don't have to sign the CLA. > > > > If you've got some PRs that have been overlooked about but which are > still relevant, let me know and I'll try and make sure they get looked at... > > It was very early days. Well before Peter so don’t worry ;-) > I think they were closed when the multiple develop branches thing happened > and I didn’t bother to reopen because they already seemed no longer > relevant unless there’s still folks that think custom controls have a > future in a widgets world... > _______________________________________________ > use-livecode mailing list > [email protected] > Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your > subscription preferences: > http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode _______________________________________________ use-livecode mailing list [email protected] Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription preferences: http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode
