The Owner of a background group
dunbarx at aol.com
dunbarx at aol.com
Tue Aug 21 17:18:01 EDT 2012
Doesn't "delete grp yourGroup" work?
From: Peter Bogdanoff <bogdanoff at me.com>
To: How to use LiveCode <use-livecode at lists.runrev.com>
Sent: Tue, Aug 21, 2012 2:35 pm
Subject: Re: The Owner of a background group
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?
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.
> 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.
>> lcSQL Software <http://www.lcsql.com>
>> On Mon, Aug 20, 2012 at 5:28 PM, <dunbarx at aol.com> wrote:
>>> 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.
>> use-livecode mailing list
>> use-livecode at lists.runrev.com
>> Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription
> use-livecode mailing list
> use-livecode at lists.runrev.com
> Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription
use-livecode mailing list
use-livecode at lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription
More information about the Use-livecode