Hi,
why don't we implement classes like icons are implemented in MC? I mean,
usually you have a separate card or stack with lots of graphics on it,
which are then used by buttons as their icons. Couldn't we simply say you
can use *any* object as a "base class" for another one?
We could allow creating an object based on another one. This object would
have empty scripts etc., and passing a handler in this script would call
the handler in the object it's based on. Every object would get an
additional "basePart" property which is the equivalent to the "owner", and
maybe a list of "children" that are based on it.
It seems simple and a bit awkward at first, but it's simple, logical and
powerful at the same time. Some examples:
create button "OK" based on btn "defaultButton" of stack "My Templates"
put the basePart of btn "OK" --> btn "defaultButton" of stack "My Templates"
The message-passing path would be a bit watered-down, though:
cd btn 5 -> basePart of cd btn 5 -> btn 5's card -> btn 5's stack -> btn
5's mainStack
since here a button in a completely different stack would be inserted into
the path, and it could get messy determining who should receive messages
sent by a button's base part when the button was clicked. Should it arrive
at btn 5's card, or should it arrive at the basePart's card, or should it
arrive at one first, and if it isn't caught move on to the other one? This
could be a problem similar to HyperCard's dynamic message path.
Cheers,
-- M. Uli Kusterer
------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.weblayout.com/witness
'The Witnesses of TeachText are everywhere...'
--- HELP SAVE HYPERCARD: ---
Details at: http://www.hyperactivesw.com/SaveHC.html
Sign: http://www.giguere.uqam.ca/petition/hcpetition.html
