dsc at swcp.com
Tue May 6 13:00:11 EDT 2014
You can move a control (or part).
You can’t move an object and a graphic leaves out images.
On May 6, 2014, at 5:06 AM, Richmond <richmondmathewson at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 06/05/14 00:24, Dar Scott wrote:
>> A kid recently made a fireball object. He called it a ‘part' so he could change from graphic to image. (I didn’t explain behavior and me, but this will have to come up.)
> 'part', 'bit', 'component', 'control', 'thingy', 'object' . . . what I call something is not going to do much good unless:
> 1. I adhere to a standard naming convention,
> 2. I make it contextually clear what I mean.
> On Day #1 I would have thought it would not be a bad idea to have "the naming of parts"
> [ http://www.solearabiantree.net/namingofparts/namingofparts.html ]
> to avoid confusion at a later date . . .
> . . . you know, that sort of wiggly thingy that makes the whim-wham go all woozhly . . .
> private codes are all very fine and even, sometimes, fun; but not much good in the
> wider world.
> So; why not stick with OBJECT ?
> This is certainly better than CONTROL as not all objects contain scripts to control other things
> or precipitate action. And, better than PART as that implies the OBJECT is somehow a dependent
> component of a greater something, and it may not be.
> use-livecode mailing list
> use-livecode at lists.runrev.com
> Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription preferences:
More information about the Use-livecode