Not that I disagree with your syntax suggestion -- it looks good to
me. But:
To avoid the problem stated below, change Jacque's code to:
insert script of btn "source" into front
put calc(varA,varB) into localResult
remove script of btn "source" from front
That way nothing else can intercept the message.
I just posted in another thread an article I wrote on functions:
http://inspiredlogic.com/articles/functions.html
If your functions are written without side effects (they should be)
then functions can be at whatever level of the message hierarchy they
need to be, so the issue of how to call them becomes moot -- move
them to the script of the mainstack if need be.
regards
Geoff
On Mar 17, 2006, at 12:17 AM, Arthur Urban wrote:
Yeah, thought about that too, but I'm tired of accommodating
transcript's ideosyncracies. A language should accommodate the
developer at every turn. The problem I see with the solution below,
is that if any layer in the message path has an identically named
function, the one I want invoked will be intercepted early, and
screen the one I actually want. It also kinda obviates the entire
strategy of invoking a method in another object. :)
You probably already considered these side-effects, but I spelled
them out for anybody else following along, trying to learn this
language.
J. Landman Gay wrote:
Or there's a really ugly way too, but it's short:
insert script of btn "source" into back
put calc(varA,varB) into localResult
remove script of btn "source" from back
I know, I know...but it works.
_______________________________________________
use-revolution mailing list
use-revolution@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your
subscription preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution
_______________________________________________
use-revolution mailing list
use-revolution@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution
