Dispatch-Sending keyDown

[Brian Yennie]

This is probably highly unnecessary, but I found it interesting to  
imagine:

on keyDown
    pass keyDown to this stack
end keyDown

A "pass" with a target =)!

> The way I rationalize it is along your line of thinking, Jacque.
>
> Basically I see a system message as something only the engine can  
> create. As soon as you use "send", you are creating a custom user- 
> level message like any other. What you have sent is NOT a system  
> message any more, it's just some sort of clone which lacks its  
> "system" identity. So it will just travel the message hierarchy the  
> same way as if you had changed the message to "BriansKeyDownHandler".
>
> I'm sure there are exceptions, but I think Hypercard had more of a  
> anything goes attitude. If you send a message, it would actually  
> simulate the behavior whenever possible. Perhaps the liberal use of  
> doMenu for even system tasks (copy / paste for example) instilled  
> this deeply?
>
> Ideally (in my mind), if Rev wants to be strict then it should just  
> not allow you to "send" system messages. Either pass them, don't  
> pass them, or use send with a non-reserved name. Then there would be  
> little room for expecting them to continue to behave as system  
> messages.
>
> FWIW.
>
>> Richard Gaskin wrote:
>>
>>> Perhaps HC allowed you to send message to any arbitrary point in  
>>> the message path beyond the current script regardless whether or  
>>> not there's a handler for it there as a more verbose alternative  
>>> to "pass".  But as I explained in detail earlier there are reasons  
>>> why Rev doesn't work the same way with messages, and instead  
>>> requires that you use the method which is simpler and faster in  
>>> both xtalks, "pass <messageName>".
>>
>> I think Craig's question is more basic. He wonders why sending some  
>> keywords to a stack will then pass that message along the hierarchy  
>> automatically if the target object doesn't have a matching handler,  
>> but sending other keywords doesn't. I.e.:
>>
>> send "beep" to this stack -- passes it through the message path
>>
>> send "keydown" to this stack -- stops the message with an error at  
>> the stack level
>>
>> I have an untested theory. Command keywords will pass through the  
>> hierarchy, but system messages won't. ("Beep" is a command.  
>> "Keydown" is a system message.) I'm not sure what built-in  
>> functions would do but I'm guessing they'd act like command keywords.
>>
>> No time to test or verify; maybe someone else can.