The Owner of a background group

[dunbarx at aol.com]

Jacque.


Your HC age is showing.


Cards lived on HC backgrounds. But LC groups live on cards, even though the background versions of these have a sort of "shared" existence within the stack. But this is closer, in my opinion, to the sharedText of a field, rather than an object class in and of itself; a shared property rather than an independent existence.


It is the single most difficult thing to get one's head around, if that head is determined to think of LC as merely HC on steroids. I am only just now thinking in LC, instead of translating from HC. Shows the persistence of ones first language, and the effort to think, naturally and idiomatically, in a new tongue.


I am aware of the advantages of groups. I miss the clean, linear hierarchal object caste system that HC proffered. 


Craig



-----Original Message-----
From: J. Landman Gay <jacque at hyperactivesw.com>
To: How to use LiveCode <use-livecode at lists.runrev.com>
Sent: Tue, Aug 21, 2012 6:51 pm
Subject: Re: The Owner of a background group


On 8/21/12 10:50 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.

In my mental framework, a card group should belong to the card it's on, 
and a background group should be owned by the stack. But maybe that's 
just me.

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

_______________________________________________
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