LiveCode 4.6.1 message path and behaviors

[Pete]

This thread reminds me of something I would like to understand better.

I currently have several custom handlers and 2 or three system message
handlers that I use in multiple applications.  At the moment, I keep them in
a library stack and insert them all as front scripts in my startup
processing for each application.  The system message handlers need to be
front scripts because I want to intercept messages before any other handlers
get hold of them but the custom handlers don;t have to be front scripts.

This all works fine but I'm wondering if there is any benefit to separating
the custom handlers out and using them as library scripts instead of front
scripts?

Pete
Molly's Revenge <http://www.mollysrevenge.com>




On Mon, May 23, 2011 at 11:03 AM, Richard Gaskin <ambassador at fourthworld.com
> wrote:

> Keith Clarke wrote:
>
> > It's clear now that my question, which sought factual clarification,
> > has raised questions of LiveCode philosophy, developer perspective
> > and architecture. There is clearly no single correct answer, no
> > 'unified theory'.
>
> There is a sense of theory about LiveCode's language, but it's equally
> saddled by a richly varied history.
>
> The difference between "send" and "dispatch" is a good example:
>
> IMO (and perhaps most people's) the syntax for including arguments with
> "send" is beautiful in its simplicity:
>
>   dispatch "SomeMessage" to "SomeObject" with tSomeVariable
>
> Send is much funkier, requiring you to send the variable name as part of
> the string being sent:
>
>   send "SomeMessage tSomeVariable" to "SomeObject"
>
>
> The "send" command first appeared in HyperTalk more than 20 years ago, so
> when it was added to LiveCode the implementation remained the same for
> compatibility.
>
> But once RunRev identified a need for a different message like "dispatch",
> unencumbered by historic compatibility they were free to use more graceful
> syntax.
>
> It might be nice if "send" could be enhanced in a future version to use the
> "with" token to passing arguments, but with so many priorities to address
> this will likely have to wait.
>
> So in the meantime we have one of a few such anomalies in the language.
>
> --
>  Richard Gaskin
>  Fourth World
>  LiveCode training and consulting: http://www.fourthworld.com
>  Webzine for LiveCode developers: http://www.LiveCodeJournal.com
>  LiveCode Journal blog: http://LiveCodejournal.com/blog.irv
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> use-livecode mailing list
> use-livecode at lists.runrev.com
> Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your
> subscription preferences:
> http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode
>
>