dsc at swcp.com
Fri Oct 3 16:14:00 EDT 2003
On Friday, October 3, 2003, at 02:34 PM, Alex Rice wrote:
> On Friday, October 3, 2003, at 02:29 PM, Dar Scott wrote:
>> Wouldn't it be easier to use it?
> It's the script marked up as HTML! That's not in MLXEditor's purview,
> nor do I want it to be. If MLXEditor touches it, it's only going to be
> for getting rid of it purposes.
Ah. You think of a script editor as an editor that edits script
I think it quite reasonable to think that. And it may be the right way
to think about this.
My mind had gone down some bunny trail and started wandering into to
thinking a script editor edits a source that is processed to become a
script. If I put fancy formatting and tabular data and math and color
and multiple languages in my /* */ handler/function headers, then they
might be lost in MLXEditor, I guess. I don't know how this would
really work; my mind wanders off in directions that my actions have yet
to find. (I won't mention pictures; that would be a distraction.)
If it does not match the script property, then getting rid of it might
be best. I don't know how the Revolution editor works, but if it
assumes that is the latest, things can go wrong. Or setting it to a
trivial uncolored html value whenever the script is set, whatever works.
What might be good would be a function you can call to set the script
and it can do what it needs to to keep a consistent
cRevgeneral["script"]. Or get the script.
If color is a function of the script syntax, then the flow of info is
not the direction my mind had wandered into, and there may not be a
problem at all. Except for my fancy headers.
More information about the Use-livecode