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

Ali Lloyd ali.lloyd at
Sun Aug 30 10:38:13 CEST 2015

The only place I see it as higher risk than a command is in the property
inspector. But perhaps making it not modifiable from the property inspector
is enough insulation.

On Sun, Aug 30, 2015 at 9:16 AM Monte Goulding <monte at>

> I guess so although that also has the same risk as a writable scriptOnly
> property so it seems to me we might as well run with the property and some
> documented warnings about losing objects and custom properties when setting
> it to true.
> The other use case (which is similar) is someone transitioning to script
> only stacks as it would save a significant amount of creating new stacks
> with different names, cutting, pasting, deleting old stack, renaming and
> saving...
> I think in both cases the writable scriptOnly property is simpler. It
> probably only needs to be an IDE engine property as I can't imagine a use
> case for it in a standalone.
> Cheers
> Monte
> Sent from my iPhone
> > On 30 Aug 2015, at 5:19 pm, Ali Lloyd <ali.lloyd at> wrote:
> >
> > 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
> _______________________________________________
> 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