Musings on Architect, MVC, Nested Behaviors

Richard Gaskin ambassador at
Sat Dec 29 12:47:58 EST 2018

Bob Sneidar wrote:

 >> On Dec 28, 2018, at 09:49 , Richard Gaskin wrote:
 >> In the beginning, script-only stacks contained only a script.
 >> Later, accommodation was made to allow the behavior property there,
 >> using the "with behavior" clause.
 >> Now we're considering adding breakpoints.
 >> Are we sure that's where it ends?
 >> It might be. But are we sure?
 >> Using a paired LSON file for other properties is reasonable enough.
 >> Should that be used for breakpoints as well?
 >> Where should the dividing line fall with what's included in what used
 >> to be script-only stacks?
 > I think most would agree with you on this Richard. It's like stack
 > files are evolving into flat files. Soon we won't need to write code,
 > we will just think it. It's kind of like a Star Trek episode, only for
 > software developers. :-)

To be clear, I don't actually have a position on this to agree or 
disagree with.  My questions are in earnest.

There is obvious merit in script-only stacks. And the team has seen 
merit in adding support for behavior declarations in them.

Whether we leave it at that or add support for other properties is an 
open question.

I see merit both ways, esp. given the relative ease and flexibility of 
using a paired LSON file for properties.  Indeed, that could be done 
with a library, requiring no engineering from the core dev team.  Direct 
engine support is always easier for us, of course, but it wouldn't be 
the hardest thing we've ever done to put props in a separate file and 
have a handler that opens the script-only stacks and sets its properties 

  Richard Gaskin
  Fourth World Systems
  Software Design and Development for the Desktop, Mobile, and the Web
  Ambassador at      

More information about the Use-livecode mailing list