where to put handlers?

[Mark Smith]

Mark, Sadhunathan, I think we have a high/low confusion here. I think  
you're both agreeing with Sarah.

FWIW, I tend to think in terms of 'behind/in front'.

Best,

Mark

On 6 Feb 2008, at 00:05, Mark Schonewille wrote:

> Hi Sadhunathan Nadesan,
>
> A lot of projects that are sent to me are unnecessarily complex  
> because people try to be "smart", putting handlers in weird places.  
> After 2 decades of programming with HyperCard and later Revolution,  
> I've come to the conclusion that it is a good idea to put handlers  
> as low as possible in the hierarchy. Only if a handler, or a part  
> of a handler, is used more than once, I put that handler higher up  
> the hierarchy. If I need only a part of a handler more than once, I  
> make a new handler with that particular part higher up the  
> hierarchy. If a handler is very short, I often put it in a button  
> or field itself, even if I need it more than once. In my view,  
> xTalk is not about programming "smart" but about programming  
> quickly and effectively (which is also smart, but different).  
> Therefore, I'd say Sarah is right.
>
>
> Best regards,
>
> Mark Schonewille
>
> --
>
> Economy-x-Talk Consulting and Software Engineering
> http://economy-x-talk.com
> http://www.salery.biz
>
> Quickly extract data from your HyperCard stacks with DIFfersifier.  
> http://differsifier.economy-x-talk.com
>
>
> Op 6-feb-2008, om 0:49 heeft Sadhunathan Nadesan het volgende  
> geschreven:
>>
>> With true respect, I would like to suggest an alternative approach,
>> the reverse.  Place handlers as high as posssible, such as in the
>> stack script.
>>
> _______________________________________________
> 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