Illustrating the message path in documentation

Richard Gaskin ambassador at
Mon Dec 2 18:48:00 EST 2002

Dar Scott wrote:

> Much of the documentation refers to "along" the path or "the next
> object" in the path or "traversing" the path or "passed on through" the
> path or "continue along" the path or "further" in the path, or "after"
> or "before".  This seems like it would give me lots of freedom in
> illustrating this.
> However, I think I have seen references to "up the path", or often
> "higher level" when referring to further along the path.  (This is
> contrary to my imagination which has messages "falling" and bumping into
> handlers in objects on the way down, some sent messages continuing into
> the bottomless pit.)  I suppose "up" could be read further along, but
> the "higher level" may say otherwise.
> The "insert script" command refers to "front" and "back".  I think this
> can be read both in the sense of close and near and in the sense of a
> chain (see "after" and "before" above).
> In the past I would diagram libraries below the modules that use those.
> Is this right for Revolution?
> What's the "right" way to diagram objects and their path relationships?

Some folks say the message travels "up", while others refer to it as "down".

Personally, I'm in the latter camp as it follows most of the world's reading
order, making diagrams arguably a tad more readily grasped.

But I think in the end it's really a matter of taste.

 Richard Gaskin 
 Fourth World Media Corporation
 Developer of WebMerge 2.1: Publish any database on any site
 Ambassador at
 Tel: 323-225-3717                       AIM: FourthWorldInc

More information about the Use-livecode mailing list