richmondmathewson at gmail.com
Tue May 6 13:06:05 CEST 2014
On 06/05/14 00:24, Dar Scott wrote:
> A kid recently made a fireball object. He called it a ‘part' so he could change from graphic to image. (I didn’t explain behavior and me, but this will have to come up.)
'part', 'bit', 'component', 'control', 'thingy', 'object' . . . what I
call something is not going to do much good unless:
1. I adhere to a standard naming convention,
2. I make it contextually clear what I mean.
On Day #1 I would have thought it would not be a bad idea to have "the
naming of parts"
[ http://www.solearabiantree.net/namingofparts/namingofparts.html ]
to avoid confusion at a later date . . .
. . . you know, that sort of wiggly thingy that makes the whim-wham go
all woozhly . . .
private codes are all very fine and even, sometimes, fun; but not much
good in the
So; why not stick with OBJECT ?
This is certainly better than CONTROL as not all objects contain scripts
to control other things
or precipitate action. And, better than PART as that implies the OBJECT
is somehow a dependent
component of a greater something, and it may not be.
More information about the use-livecode