Using "go card" on Linux standalone with -ui
richmondmathewson at gmail.com
Sun Sep 25 14:35:36 EDT 2011
On 09/25/2011 09:23 PM, Ben Rubinstein wrote:
> Richard, Mark, thanks for your continuing responses.
> On 21/09/2011 16:37, Richard Gaskin wrote:
>> Ben Rubinstein wrote:
>>> I need to go to particular cards, to avoid masses of rewriting of
>>> this app which more normally runs with a GUI, as the scripts reference
>>> controls and properties on different cards.
>> Why do you need to "go" to a card? Data can be accessed from any
>> object, even
>> those that aren't "opened".
> Yep, I 'need' to use 'go' only to avoid rewriting a lot of code. The
> app does a bunch of functionality, guided by 'scripts' (not LC
> scripts); most of my (handful) of clients use it interactively, with a
> GUI (some use it from the command line as a scheduled task as well,
> but this has to date always been on machines running Windows, that
> have a GUI even if nobody can see it). This is the first case where
> we want to deploy it as a scheduled task on machine without a GUI.
> It's not worth that level of rewriting to make it work - for this
> particular case I could by now have coded an alternative in Python -
> especially since much of the value of this is that all the
> functionality of the app should be available.
> So I don't 'need' to use go - but I want to!
> On 22/09/2011 03:04, Mark Wieder wrote:
> > I don't think it's a big mystery - any sort of a UI operation: go to
> > card x, show field, etc, might well have assertions to make sure the
> > engine isn't going to grobble off the end of the road. I think that's
> > a proper use of assertions, but there should also be a check to make
> > sure that we're not in -ui mode beforehand.
> Surely the point is that all those operations should be - and AFAICT
> most are - implemented with suitable checks to make sure there is a
> UI; and that the assertion is revealing one which hasn't been. I just
> wondered if anyone else had come across this before and found out
> which operation it is that has this problem.
At the risk of appearing very stupid indeed; how can one have statements
go to card "CFifteen"
when the application has no GUI?
I suppose one could say that the application consists of a stcck
consisting of card that cannot be seen
to which I would reply, that if I slice open my hard-disk with a hacksaw
I'm going to get nowhere looking for stacks and cards; all I'm going to
find are lots of Iron oxide molecules
lying around in funny alignments.
This is rather like the poet John Keats, who went to the dissection of a
human body in London,
and was surprised to find that there were no images of external things
inside the brain of the dead man.
Surely the answer to this question is to ask how deep the stack/card
metaphor extends in Livecode, only as to a GUI, or further down.
More information about the Use-livecode