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

Ali Lloyd ali.lloyd at
Sun Aug 30 03:19:29 EDT 2015

Ah yes, I see what you mean. It would be very handy for that case. Another
option would be a variant of the save command, like

save pStack as [(script only | binary) stack] pFilename

On Sun, 30 Aug 2015 at 00:28, Monte Goulding <monte at>

> > On 30 Aug 2015, at 8:24 am, Peter TB Brett <peter.brett at>
> wrote:
> >
> > 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.
> The only use case I could think of for making it a writable property was
> for the standalone builder to support password protecting them by making
> them stacks but you could work around this by supporting password
> protection on script only stacks I guess or as Ali suggests just copy from
> one stack to the other, delete the original from memory and then set the
> name and save… Mind you we can do dangerous things with our code all the
> time so I don’t really think we need an nanny for this one... just some
> docs.
> >
> >>> 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 at...
> It was very early days. Well before Peter so don’t worry ;-)
> I think they were closed when the multiple develop branches thing happened
> and I didn’t bother to reopen because they already seemed no longer
> relevant unless there’s still folks that think custom controls have a
> future in a widgets world...
> _______________________________________________
> use-livecode mailing list
> use-livecode at
> Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your
> subscription preferences:

More information about the Use-livecode mailing list