Page 7 of 7

Re: behavior object properties set prop/get prop

Posted: Wed Jun 12, 2013 9:45 am
by LCMark
@monte: Sorry about the delay - I meant to go through it with you at the conference to make sure all the i's were dotted and the t's were crossed but we didn't get the chance (as I recall we got caught up in solving the mergDropSync problem ;))... Since then it's been on my list but things keep popping up on top of it. It's a cool feature and I'd very much like to see it integrated, so again, just a bit more time :)

Re: behavior object properties set prop/get prop

Posted: Wed Jun 12, 2013 9:50 am
by monte
No problem... I'd actually forgotten about it myself :-)

Re: behavior object properties set prop/get prop

Posted: Wed Jun 12, 2013 3:32 pm
by mwieder
I'm not sure my t's are dotted, but my i's are definitely crossed.

Re: behavior object properties set prop/get prop

Posted: Wed Jun 12, 2013 3:43 pm
by LCMark
I'm not sure my t's are dotted, but my i's are definitely crossed.
@mwieder: Have you spent too much time staring at a computer screen already today? ;)

Re: behavior object properties set prop/get prop

Posted: Sat Jul 27, 2013 5:09 am
by monte
one day we really should look at this again ;-)

Re: behavior object properties set prop/get prop

Posted: Sun Jul 28, 2013 9:08 pm
by SirWobbyTheFirst
If I can add my own two pence (Because dammit this isn't 'Murica ;)), if anyone remembers my script protection idea, well this sort of thing could provide the functionality for my idea, unlike before, any application could opt into the script protection. For example, if you want to prevent some bad guy from modifying your code whilst still allowing it to be viewed as per the GPL terms, you could simply include code like the following:

Code: Select all

SetProp Script
End SetProp
And you could just leave it blank to prevent a stack and its objects from having their code deleted/modified but still allowing it to be viewed, it would be a totally opt in sort of trick, any devs who didn't mind or didn't need it could just leave that kind of code out. But it depends on whether you guys are still thinking about this or not.