The Owner of a background group

[Peter Bogdanoff]

I've seen this. Is there a way to delete a group completely from the stack? I'm working with a stack that has over a dozen unused groups. It is a legacy from when it was a HyperCard stack. The unused groups aren't causing a problem other than there are many with duplicate names.

Can these be deleted?

Peter Bogdanoff
UCLA

On Aug 21, 2012, at 8:50 AM, Bob Sneidar wrote:

> Hmmm now that I am thinking about it with a full cup of coffee surging through my veins, I seem to remember Jacque mentioning in the past that a background group really belongs to the stack as a whole from a certain point of view, although as Craig says, for the purposes of the message path it has to belong to some card, and may as well be the current card. 
> 
> To demonstrate the idea that a background group really belongs to the stack, create a group on a card, then delete the card. Group goes away and cannot be placed. Now create a group on a card, and set the background behavior to true. Delete the card. Notice that the new group still exists to be placed even though it doesn't exist on ANY card anymore! 
> 
> Groups belong to stacks, but cards are in the message path when the group is placed on them. I think this is the way to think about it. 
> 
> Bob
> 
> 
> On Aug 20, 2012, at 5:57 PM, Peter Haworth wrote:
> 
>> I agree with that, that's why I thought the behavior I was seeing was so
>> weird.  I started using a fresh copy of the stack and all now works as
>> expected so there must have been some corruption in the version of the
>> stack I was using.
>> 
>> There might be an existing way to find out the "progenitor" - the cardNames
>> of a group gives a list of all the card names that group appears on and,
>> without exhaustive testing, it appears that the first line of that list
>> might be the progenitor.
>> 
>> Pete
>> lcSQL Software <http://www.lcsql.com>
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> On Mon, Aug 20, 2012 at 5:28 PM, <dunbarx at aol.com> wrote:
>> 
>>> Bob.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> It seems more natural to me that the owner is the current card. It makes
>>> the message hierarchy consistent.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> The "progenitor" could be a property as you suggest, but since this is not
>>> native, just set a custom property of the group to the id of the card that
>>> gave it birth. You then get everything you could ask for.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Craig
>>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> 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