Pass - is it really needed

Thomas McGrath III 3mcgrath at
Thu Mar 16 21:16:19 EST 2006

Thanks Robert,

I wasn't sure but that was what I was thinking. Your response  
verifies that for me and I feel I can keep treating Pass the way I  
normally do. I wanted to make sure I wasn't missing something crucial.

Thanks again,


On Mar 16, 2006, at 8:57 PM, Robert Brenstein wrote:
>> 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.
> 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.

Thomas J McGrath III
3mcgrath at

Lazy River Software™ -

Lazy River Metal Art™ -

Meeting Wear™ -

Semantic Compaction Systems -

SCIconics, LLC -

More information about the Use-livecode mailing list