Correct Syntax???!!!

David Burgun dburgun at dsl.pipex.com
Fri Mar 24 12:23:18 EST 2006


Hi,

On 24 Mar 2006, at 16:12, Richard Gaskin wrote:
> I'm not sure it's helpful to the readers here to say that "me" is  
> not 100% reliable without providing details;

The details are all in the posts from the other thread, I really  
didn't want to cut and paste all that again.

> while narrowly accurate, it appears that "me" is 99.99% reliable,  
> with only one highly specific circumstance required to expose a bug  
> that to my knowledge has affects very few people in actual use,

f I had read something like "me" is not 100% reliable 6 months ago,  
it would have saved me two days frustration and a lot of time and  
effort by a few people on this list. As it is now I have to work the  
weekend to get back on Track! Oh well, such is life!

If there are two ways of doing something, one that is 100% reliable  
and one is 99.99% reliable, I think most people would choose the 100%  
solution, especially when it comes to software.

> in a circumstance where using option a) above still relies on "me"  
> and takes only a few seconds to correct for on one line with no  
> changes required to any other code.

This is not *always* the case, for instance this requires more effort:

set line 1 of me to <something>

The thing is that I have:

put <something> into me

all over the place. The reason for this is that around 2 years ago  
when I first started using RunRev, I saw an initialization handler  
(in one of the Sample Stacks that came with RunRev)  that did:

put empty into me

So I used this form from then on and the 99.99% solution got  
replicated over and over again!

It is really obscure that you can have a tried and tested handler  
that stops working as soon as it's called from a handler on an  
unopened card and to get around the problem have to use an alternate  
syntax which works 100% of the time (AFAIK!)

Also, seasoned "RunRev'ers) or maybe MetaCard'ers seem to think that  
it's odd that a handler gets called on an unopened card. I guess I  
just haven't come from the same background. I didn't think twice  
about whether an object on an unopened card would be treated  
differently or not. As far as I know it's not explicitly mentioned in  
any of the documents.

This could be part of the problem facing newbies. The seasoned  
developers have a mindset that has evolved from what *was* possible,  
whereas the newbie doesn't know what *was* possible so they don't  
think deeply about it and concentrate more on what *is* possible  
given the sample stacks available and the documentation.

Now that I have changed all the occurrences of "me" to use the longer  
syntax it works just fine, and I must say that using my Inter-Stack  
Messaging (ISM) System makes re-using groups and building apps so  
much more simple! In fact I think I am at least 95% of the way to  
achieving the dream of truly re-usable objects.

I just did an experiment where I took 5 Groups developed using the  
ISM and dropped them into a new stack. I then made a copy of all the  
groups (so that there are two of each) and have them all interacting  
perfectly. The whole operation took about 15 minutes, that's screen  
design, code, everything!

FANTASTIC!!! This is what I love about RunRev!

All the Best
Dave













More information about the Use-livecode mailing list