Control properties not included in the Property Inspector

Richard Gaskin ambassador at
Mon Nov 6 20:20:35 EST 2017

Mark Wieder wrote:

 > <rant>
 > I've never liked the idea of hiding things from users.
 > Ideally you might want to show groups of properties contextually, but
 > the idea that there are properties that exist but you can't get to
 > them just does.not.seem.right.
 > </rant

Depends in the purpose.

The properties function was designed to allow one-step transformations 
of objects.

Without it, the old-school way is "set the <label> of something to 
<value>" over and over for every property value being changed.

It was not designed for learning or documentation.  It was designed 
solely for rapid development.

Hence things like htmlText being there but rtfText not.  The former is a 
tagged textual representation of everything a field can have, while 
rtfText is merely a subset of field elements suitable for certain types 
of import/export.

If an enhancement request is filed I'd prefer it be for an optional 
modifier to the existing function syntax, rather than littering the 
current function results with synonyms or subset-value props that aren't 
needed for automating property assignment.

Maybe "the full properties of..."?

For the intended purpose, I've been quite happy with "the properties" as-is.

  Richard Gaskin
  Fourth World Systems
  Software Design and Development for the Desktop, Mobile, and the Web
  Ambassador at      

More information about the use-livecode mailing list