pete at lcsql.com
Fri Jun 14 12:42:19 EDT 2013
I was just looking at bug # 8884 regarding missing properties and you had a
post on there with a huge list of constant declarations for each property
of each object. Couldn't that be used as the basis for the propertynames
I would also like to suggest that we should think twice about excluding
synonyms or any other category of property. Excluding them means there's a
brick wall between them and anyone who would like to get them. I'm not
saying they should always be returned, just that there should be some sort
of syntax that would allow for them to be returned if needed.
lcSQL Software <http://www.lcsql.com>
On Thu, Jun 13, 2013 at 7:06 PM, Monte Goulding <monte at sweattechnologies.com
> The thing about the propertyNames of object type property is that
> basically it would just be maintaining a list in the engine rather than in
> the docs or IDE or something.. There's no real way to inspect an object
> type to see what properties it has... Other than one idea I have of parsing
> over the lextable and testing the object for each property to see if
> there's an error when you try and get the property... But that's kind of
> brute force and would return all the synonyms too... I guess you could
> filter out the synonyms somehow... Still some architectural change may make
> this easy so it's better to start a topic on the engine forum.
> M E R Goulding
> Software development services
> mergExt - There's an external for that!
> On 14/06/2013, at 11:10 AM, Peter Haworth <pete at lcsql.com> wrote:
> > Hopefully, the movement to improve "the propertynames" will gather steam
> > so it won;t be necessary to use the properties t get a list of property
> > names for an object.
> 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