Developer Annoyance #1

[Jim Ault]

Ooops, I got the wrong idea from your use of value(merge... etc

You can use the 'send' or 'call' commands to use a function outside the
message hierarchy, even in another stack.

As Andre has shown

send "calc VarA, VarB" to btn "source"
put the result into localResult

where...
on calc VarA, VarB
...do work here
return theVal
end calc

or

insert the script of btn "source" into back
--now the handler(s) are in the message hierarchy
 put calc(varA,varB) into localResult
remove the script of btn "source" from back --now or later

Jim Ault
Las Vegas

On 3/16/06 9:43 PM, "Arthur Urban" <aturban at qwest.net> wrote:

> I think a new syntax needs to be made available for calling functions
> outside the message hierarchy. The existing mechanism does not lend
> itself to high readability or maintainability. Consider the following,
> if you will:
> 
>   put 1 into varA
>   put 2 into varB
>   put value( merge("calc([[varA]],[[varB]]))", btn "source" ) into
> localResult
> 
> further, if I need to protect the integrity of the variable passed it
> begins to look like this:
> 
>   put "1,2,3" into varA
>   put 4 into varB
>   put value( merge("calc([[quote&varA&quote]],[[varB]]))", btn "source"
> ) into localResult
> 
> I'm not sure that this is the right direction for any language to be
> headed. Please explain why we can't have the following syntax:
> 
>   put calc(varA,varB) of btn "source" into localResult
> 
> _______________________________________________
> use-revolution mailing list
> use-revolution at lists.runrev.com
> Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription
> preferences:
> http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution