On 2016-01-08 21:56, Monte Goulding wrote:
Using Mark’s example:
on processThing
load url "..." with block pResultCode, pData, pError
---
end block
end processThing
— OR
on processThing
load url "..." with processThing2
end processThing
block processThing2 pResultCode, pData, pError
--
end processThing2
Is the block syntax really any better than just using callbacks?
If you don't have the block inline, then it is the same; if you do then
things get unwieldy as soon as you want to sequence 3 or more things (I
tend to find at least).
Ideally, I think all blocking operations would block using 'with with
messages', and message loops created in this way would run side-by-side
rather than recursively (the current recursive nature is why you get
into a lot of trouble with 'get url' if you aren't careful).
In terms of cancellation, then you could imagine that each handler stack
which is started (all running side-by-side in a co-operative fashion)
has some sort of easily accessible id (e.g. the task id) which you could
save and then do something like 'cancel task id ...'. This would cause a
'cancelled' exception to be generated in the context of that task so it
could clean itself up.
Warmest Regards,
Mark.
--
Mark Waddingham ~ m...@livecode.com ~ http://www.livecode.com/
LiveCode: Everyone can create apps
_______________________________________________
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
