scriptsLimits

[K]

If I create a function that takes that uses the params or param() how do I pass by parameter by reference? 




-==-=-=-=-=-=-==-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-==-=-=-=-=-=-
Disclaimer:

Any resemblance between the above views and those of my
employer, my terminal, or the view out my window are purely
coincidental. 
Any resemblance between the above and my own views is non-deterministic.

 The question of the existence of views in the absence of anyone to hold
them
is left as an exercise for the reader. The question of the existence of
the reader
 is left as an exercise for the second god coefficient. 
(A discussion of non-orthogonal, non-integral polytheism is beyond the
scope of this article.)



 --- On Mon 07/19, K < nnoydb at excite.com > wrote:
From: K [mailto: nnoydb at excite.com]
To: use-revolution at lists.runrev.com
Date: Mon, 19 Jul 2004 02:45:55 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: Re: scriptsLimits

<br><br>I must ask what those of us who enjoy OOP are supposed to do in the mean time? I like the idea of creating button/control that are used like Template/Visual Basic classes.<br><br><br><br>-==-=-=-=-=-=-==-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-==-=-=-=-=-=-<br>Disclaimer:<br><br>Any resemblance between the above views and those of my<br>employer, my terminal, or the view out my window are purely<br>coincidental. <br>Any resemblance between the above and my own views is non-deterministic.<br><br> The question of the existence of views in the absence of anyone to hold<br>them<br>is left as an exercise for the reader. The question of the existence of<br>the reader<br> is left as an exercise for the second god coefficient. <br>(A discussion of non-orthogonal, non-integral polytheism is beyond the<br>scope of this article.)<br><br><br><br> --- On Sun 07/18, Judy Perry < jperryl at ecs.fullerton.edu > wrote:<br>From: Judy Perry [mailto: jperryl at ecs.fullerton.edu]<br>To: use-revolution at lists.runrev.com<br>Date: Sun, 18 Jul 2004 12:06:42 -0700 (PDT)<br>Subject: Re: scriptsLimits<br><br>I thought that Kevin had assured us that Rev wasn't going to "go over" to<br>using dot syntax.  No?   Am I remembering incorrectly?<br><br>Judy<br><br>On Sun, 18 Jul 2004, Richard Gaskin wrote:<br><br>> FWIW, I've been advised by Scott Raney not to rely on dot notation in my<br>> own handler names, as future versions of the engine may include OOPS<br>> extensions which may affect existing uses of dot notation in<br>> unpredictable ways.<br><br>_______________________________________________<br>use-revolution mailing list<br>use-revolution at lists.runrev.com<br>http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution<br><br><br>_______________________________________________<br>Join Excite! - http://www.excite.com<br>The most personalized portal on the Web!<br>_______________________________________________<br>use-revolution mailing list<br>use-revolution at lists.runrev.com<br>http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution<br>

_______________________________________________
Join Excite! - http://www.excite.com
The most personalized portal on the Web!