put into named field weirdness

J. Landman Gay jacque at hyperactivesw.com
Mon Feb 11 17:31:43 EST 2008

Russell Martin wrote:
> Wow. Thank you.
> That was completely counterintuitive, but, you are 100% correct.

It might be more intuitive if you think of "this" as refering to the 
stack that currently has the engine's attention. The dictionary says 
that any object reference that has no stack reference in it is assumed 
to be in the defaultstack. It gives the example of "this card", which 
the engine interprets as "this card of the defaultstack". (See 
"defaultstack" in the dictionary.)
> So, is there another way to refer to the stack that the currently
> executing script belongs too? One that remains constant? Maybe
> something like 'target owner'?

Not specifically. There is the keyword "me" which refers to the object 
running the script. If your script is in the stack script, then "me" is 
the stack. But if the script is in another object, then it is that 
object which is "me", not the stack itself. Since your handlers seem to 
be in a stack script you could get away with using "me" as long as you 
remain aware that moving the handlers will break them.

If the script is in a card you can sometimes use "the owner of me", 
which will often be the stack. But it isn't 100% reliable; for example, 
if the card is part of a background group, then its owner is the group.

Depending on what you're doing, there are lots of workarounds. It is 
common to store the name of the stack at the beginning of a handler so 
that you can reference it later on as needed. If you do that a lot, you 
can write a short function that will always return the stack name. Or if 
you need something else, let us know and someone will no doubt jump in. 
There are a lot of ways to skin that cat.

Jacqueline Landman Gay         |     jacque at hyperactivesw.com
HyperActive Software           |     http://www.hyperactivesw.com

More information about the Use-livecode mailing list