pete at lcsql.com
Thu Jun 13 12:38:05 EDT 2013
In response to the various posts.
My need is to get the names of all the properties of any given object, not
necessarily the values. As far as I know, the only way to do that is to
get the properties of the object and then get the keys of the result.
So yes, an extension to the propertynames as suggested would be a great
idea. For the reasons above, I would suggest that the propertynames be
capable of returning all properties, even those that are derived, read
only, or synonyms, perhaps by use of various keywords.
Meanwhile, this change just broke a critical part of my code, is not
backward compatible, and there is no way for me to work around it other
than go to a considerable amount of effort to maintain my own list of
properties per object which I don't consider to be a reasonable
alternative. By contrast, without this change, all that is needed to
determine if a property is set or not is a simple "if empty" test.
I contributed to the discussion on the engine forum, as Monte is
suggesting, but the change went ahead anyway, perhaps because I didn't
explain myself clearly enough. I see no reason why these issues shouldn't
be discussed here rather than the engine forum; this list has far more
visibility than the engine forum and it's critical that as many people as
possible are aware of what changes are being suggested.
Much as I appreciate the time and effort that people are willing to put in
to making engine changes in this new open source era, I strongly believe
this change should be removed, modified so that the properties can be made
to behave as they did prior to 6.1, or put on hold until the proposed
change to the propertynames can be implemented.
lcSQL Software <http://www.lcsql.com>
> 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