"this me"?

[Mike Kerner]

this is obviously a tough one because we have an extra level of abstraction
to deal with, which also means, IMHO, that we are going to have more typing
to do if we want the words to mean anything.

Trying to use at least some of the vocabulary from the release notes, where
"B" contains the script and "A" is using "B"'s script,

I'm not sure why "me" in "B" SHOULD output "A".  If I was reading that code
(with "me" instead of "this me"), I would say it would/should always say
"B", not "A", and that we have the whole meaning of "me" messed up.  I
understand why things are the other way, but IMHO, "me" should be the
object that contains the script, and something like "callingObject" or
"object calling this script" should output "A".

HOWEVER, if I'm stuck with this behavior as described (UGH), then

"the owner of this script"
"the object this script belongs to"
"the object containing this script"
"the scriptContainer"
"the scriptObject"

are WAY better than "this me".  Trevor, I think :-P would have been better
than :-) when you suggested that.


Can we PLEASE have ME be the object that contains the script?  If you're in
the script editor, and you see "ME", are you REALLY going to think "that's
the object that's executing this script, but it might not be THIS object?
Of course not.

Also, so that I understand (because the explanation in the release notes
was a little less than ideal), what happens if, say, "C" does a "send
mouseup" to "A"?
a) what will "ME" do (should send me "B")?
b) what will "THIS ME #justkillmenow" do?



On Wed, Aug 7, 2013 at 9:02 PM, Mike Kerner <MikeKerner at roadrunner.com>wrote:

> Sorry, Mark W, I didn't understand what you were asking.
>
> I don't think I got a notice.  I think it popped up in LC when I was
> launching it.
>
>
> On Wed, Aug 7, 2013 at 7:31 PM, Monte Goulding <
> monte at sweattechnologies.com> wrote:
>
>>
>> On 08/08/2013, at 8:45 AM, Mark Schonewille wrote:
>>
>> > Then why did you accept "this me"?
>>
>> It's not up to me to accept it or not so I'm not sure where you got that
>> from.
>> >
>> > In the discussion I am having with you now, you said "this behavior"
>> doesn't make sense.
>>
>> Yes, it doesn't make sense outside the context of a behavior script but
>> I'm not really sure why that's important so I still like it.
>> >
>> > Now I'm really putting an end to this discussion.
>>
>> It's been such a pleasure conversing with you Mark.
>>
>> > It doesn't seem to lead anywhere,
>>
>> Well that's up to you. It could lead to you proposing this control on the
>> engine forum if you feel despite my criticism it's the best option.
>>
>> > but I do hope others will contribute with some really good ideas.
>>
>> Sure, I'd like to discuss good ideas.
>>
>> --
>> M E R Goulding
>> Software development services
>> Bespoke application development for vertical markets
>>
>> mergExt - There's an external for that!
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> use-livecode mailing list
>> use-livecode at lists.runrev.com
>> Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your
>> subscription preferences:
>> http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode
>>
>
>
>
> --
> On the first day, God created the heavens and the Earth
> On the second day, God created the oceans.
> On the third day, God put the animals on hold for a few hours,
>    and did a little diving.
> And God said, "This is good."
>



-- 
On the first day, God created the heavens and the Earth
On the second day, God created the oceans.
On the third day, God put the animals on hold for a few hours,
   and did a little diving.
And God said, "This is good."