geradamas at yahoo.com
Sun Oct 15 04:40:12 EDT 2006
I do not really understand Dar Scott's
"As a product Revolution does NOT have
executionContexts except maybe as a reserved word of
some sort. This is not an underdocumented feature of
the product. I did not buy executioncontexts."
I bought 2 varieties of Runtime Revolution and the
both contain the 'term'
now this may be what Dar Scott terms an "intramural"
part of RR, HOWEVER:
it is part of what I have bought, and as such it would
seem that documenting it might not be a bad thing -
after all if I stumble across it and use it
incorrectly all sorts of unintended results may ensue.
Dar Scott's argument seems to imply that I may not
open my G4 Mac and poke around inside it because some
of the components are "intramural" - sure they are -
they are all 'inside the walls', but I don't see what
that has to do with it - I own the machine;
and, similarly, I own my copies of Dreamcard and
Needless to say, this discussion leads us,
willy-nilly, towards whether, because I own an
instantiation of a programming environment I am
allowed to muck around with the source-code.
It does seem, however, that if Runtime Revolution (the
company) did not want folks like me to access stuff
like 'executionContexts' they would have built a
'wall' around it so that it was truly intramural.
A secondary point is what Dar Scott means by
"underdocumented" - executionContexts seems not to be
mentioned at all in the documentation.
sincerely, Richmond Mathewson
"Philosophical problems are confusions arising owing to the fluidity of meanings users attach to words and phrases."
Send instant messages to your online friends http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com
More information about the Use-livecode