Script-only stacks [was: Re: Script Editor future]

Peter TB Brett peter.brett at
Sat Aug 29 18:24:10 EDT 2015

On 2015-08-29 23:05, Monte Goulding wrote:
>> On 29 Aug 2015, at 10:22 pm, Peter TB Brett <peter.brett at> 
>> wrote:
>> This looks like the sort of thing that's best off being looked at by 
>> Mark Waddingham.  Unfortunately my last day before my annual holiday 
>> is the day before he gets back from his annual holiday, so I'm not 
>> going to be able to bring this up with him for at least a couple of 
>> weeks.  Can I suggest that you e-mail him directly?
> I’ll just wait for Mark to get back. It’s a simple one but there’s
> obviously dire consequences for your stack objects if you set the
> scriptOnly to true so I’d like to get the nod before bothering. The
> engine forum has gone fairly quiet lately but the original idea was we
> would propose stuff we wanted to do then get the nod on syntax and
> whether it would be accepted if we did it etc. It may be that script
> only stacks are short term and the long term plan is not to have these
> scripts be stacks but update start using, back|front script and
> behavior to point to files rater than objects. Is that why they aren’t
> documented?

I *think* Mark will be back in the office on Monday, so he'll probably 
see this exchange

At the moment I usually treat normal stacks and script-only stacks as 
totally different things.  I think of normal stacks as places for UI and 
trivial glue code, and script-only stacks as places for complex handler 
libraries and behaviours.  They have different filenames too (.livecode 
vs .livecodescript).  My instinct is that adding a way to switch a stack 
back and forth between normal and script-only isn't very intuitive, and 
could cause "dire consequences" as you suggest.  On the other hand, 
having a *read only* scriptOnly property (or some equivalent) sounds 
like it could be pretty useful.

We *really* need documentation with more structure.  I can't remember 
how one tests what sort of object something is, and the dictionary isn't 
giving me any hints...

>> Or just submit a PR on GitHub, that'll make sure it doesn't get 
>> forgotten about. ;-)
> I actually had some PRs that were forgotten about although I think
> both of them have now or will in the future at least become irrelevant
> because of widgets.

Oops, sorry.  I shouldn't let these things slip through the cracks.  
It's a lot easier now that there's a defined process for accepting 
contributions!  The processes for community contributors and LiveCode 
employees are now pretty much the same -- the only two differences are 
that 1) we still can't accept binary stack changes directly (sorry :-/) 
and 2) employees don't have to sign the CLA.

If you've got some PRs that have been overlooked about but which are 
still relevant, let me know and I'll try and make sure they get looked 


Dr Peter Brett <peter.brett at>
LiveCode Open Source Team

LiveCode on reddit! <>

More information about the Use-livecode mailing list