This might be dealt with better with a 'try...catch' structure. I
don't know much about the error numbers that Rev produces, but
try
cmdName
catch tError
put tError
end try
where I know handler cmdName is commented out consistently produces
this error string:
573,3,1,cmdName
This may or may not be useful in the context you described, but
perhaps offers another way of testing for the existence or
availability of a handler.
Mark
On 19 Mar 2006, at 13:18, David Burgun wrote:
Hi,
The problem is that if you are doing something like this:
if the script of myObject contains "on HandlerName" then
send HandlerName to myObject
end if
This this will work if the Hander is NOT commented out, but will
fail with an error if the handler IS commented out. Also if you
have a comment in a Script that just happens to contain "on
HandlerName" then the "if" will succeed even though there is no
handler defined.
I had a problem that took me ages to figure out. In a script I had
something like the following:
--on Update make sure the field is not selected
which meant that:
if the script of myObject contains "on Update" then
succeeded, but the send statement failed since there wasn't really
a handler called "update" defined. Checking for "end Update" *may*
have worked, as long as there was not a line that read something like:
send Update to myObject
Also checking for "end Update" slows the whole process down.
What would be nice is the ability to check if a (real) handler
exists not just that the script contains text that looks like a
handler defintion. Something like this would be good:
if exists(handler "Update" in script of myObject) then
Which would make it 100% foolproof.
All the Best
Dave
On 17 Mar 2006, at 12:19, Mark Smith wrote:
Commenting would only affect things if the wholeMatches is set to
true - normally, lineOffset will get the right line even if it's
commented out, no?
Mark
On 17 Mar 2006, at 12:06, David Burgun wrote:
Hi,
Of course none of the solutions so far work if the function is
commented out. To make the code 100% foolproof is a lot of work.
I was doing something similar and found that comments made life
really difficult.
All the Best
Dave
On 17 Mar 2006, at 11:42, Robert Brenstein wrote:
Perhaps using
set the wholematches to true
put lineOffset("on" && pHandlerName, pScript) into tStart
if tStart is 0 then put lineOffset("function" && pHandlerName,
pScript) into
tStart
put (lineOffset("end" && pHandlerName, pScript) +1 into tEnd
answer tStart & cr & tEnd
Jim Ault
Las Vegas
Unfortunately, wholematches can't be used, at least for the
first lineoffset, because there are likely some parameters
further in that line. The alternative to lineOffset is to use
regex.
A truly generic function would need to know whether it searches
for command or function, because it is possible to have one of
each with the same name.
Robert
_______________________________________________
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
