Control properties not included in the Property Inspector

Mark Wieder ahsoftware at
Mon Nov 6 20:39:25 EST 2017

On 11/06/2017 05:20 PM, Richard Gaskin via use-livecode wrote:

> 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.

OK. Point taken. But the OP's point is that there are properties of 
objects that aren't obvious unless you already know to look for them. I 
believe Pete Haworth went through the exercise a while back of trying to 
identify all the properties (writable or not) of an object and it's not 
a straightforward thing.

> 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..."?

Yeah, that was my thought as well, even before you brought up the 
one-step transformation thing. I'd support that, and it would be much 
easier than having to parse through the txt file. And keeping track of 
the properties of a given type of object is a maintenance nightmare in 
the legacy engine code.

  Mark Wieder
  ahsoftware at

More information about the use-livecode mailing list