Bob Sneidar wrote: > Agreed, but then you need to be careful about what any of your > variables contain. :-)
This sort of hints at a question I've been wondering throughout this thread: why is this needed?
If you find yourself needing to clear variables of a particular scope, maybe that's reason to consider a narrower scope.
Wholesale deletion of all variables throughout a script seems likely to be a problem later on when a handler actually needs a persistent value in one of them It's such an unusual thing to do that it's easy to imagine anyone working in that script a year from now being mystified when values they're depending on keep disappearing.
I don't understand the perceived need so it's not possible to have a useful opinion on this case in question, but as a general rule I tend to prefer to use the narrowest scope that'll get the job done, and if I need to clear it I'll write out a "put empty into ..." by hand rather than risk unanticipatable future issues by clearing all vars a script depends on.
If this is just needed during development the answer is even simpler: just turn off "Variable Preservation" in prefs.
-- Richard Gaskin Fourth World Systems Software Design and Development for the Desktop, Mobile, and the Web ____________________________________________________________________ ambassa...@fourthworld.com http://www.FourthWorld.com _______________________________________________ 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
