Pass - is it really needed
rjb at robelko.com
Thu Mar 16 20:57:11 EST 2006
>I am writing a lot of commands and functions for a library and was
>wondering if the Pass handler name was a necessity? I mean, If I am
>not using a handler name that is a part of transcript then do I
>really want the handler to pass after running it? What would be a
>reason I would.
>The reason I ask is that when I insert a new command it throws in a
>pass with that commands name by default. I don't normally use the
>Pass except when using an On card or other transcript handler.
>Thomas J McGrath III
>3mcgrath at adelphia.net
The script editor is just trying to be friendly and reduce the amount
of typing for you. Using pass is your call and depends on what you
want to achieve.
Normally, you would not pass your own handlers unless you do
multi-tiered processing; for example, card handler does card-specific
stuff and passes it further so background handler can do
background-specific stuff and/or stack can do stack-wide stuff. The
situation with standard messages is a tad different. Here, you would
usually pass the call unless you want to terminate processing; for
example, having openStack on card level without pass will prevent the
openStack handler in the stack script from executing.
More information about the Use-livecode