Copy to Group problems - solved!
keith.clarke at clarkeandclarke.co.uk
Tue Jan 17 03:04:36 CST 2012
That's an interesting distinction, especially as it's often the case that both are true when creating new objects - the last (most recent) becomes the last (highest numbered).
The fallacy of the first rule is only proven when a new object is created and forced down the 'recency' scale - by placing it in an older (and hence lower numbered) group.
Just out of interest, can the language recognise 'most recent' in any way - i.e. do objects get a time/date stamp behind the scenes (as standard) as well as a number?
On 17 Jan 2012, at 00:25, Bob Sneidar wrote:
> OIC not the "last object that was created" but the "last object in the numbered list of objects"! I think you may be right about that!
> On Jan 16, 2012, at 1:28 PM, J. Landman Gay wrote:
>> On 1/16/12 2:17 PM, user wrote:
>>> First of all, thanks to all of you who offered advice on this
>>> problem, with special thanks to Craig Newman for definitively
>>> pointing out that "The "last" keyword is not stable when referring to
>>> groups." - apparently a LC bug
>> I'm not sure it's really a bug. I think the "last" keyword refers to the highest-numbered object. If you put an object into a group, it won't be the highest number unless the enclosing group is also the highest numbered object.
>> I don't have authoritative info about that, but that's how it's behaving.
>> 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:
> use-livecode mailing list
> use-livecode at lists.runrev.com
> Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription preferences:
More information about the use-livecode