LiveCode Forums.

QUESTION 1 of 2:

Why in version 2.8.1, the statement:

put queryRegistry("HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SYSTEM\CurrentControlSet\Services\Cdrom\AutoRun","dword") into tautorun

executes just fine, but in version 3.5 the statement does not execute and gives the following error text:

execution error at line 2271 (), char 3

Has my 2nd parameter of "dword" been in error all along and is now just getting caught in my new rev version of 3.5?

QUESTION 2 of 2:
In 3.5, it seems that the error text is somewhat sparse vs. what I am used to when using 2.8.1. Is this true? What am I missing? It seems that 2.8.1 was a bit more verbose in giving information about a statement that blew up...it would give more information that would attempt to explain the specific problem the engine encountered when trying to execute the statement.

Thanks!

on queryRegistry, the second, optional parameter is the variable name in which to return the registry key's type. If you take out the quotes around dword it should work, and the variable dword should contain the type, and in the case of a dword type key, then the variable will contain the value "dword" - but not necessarily, so your variable name could maybe be changed for clarity.
Otherwise it may be a permissions issue - possibly to do with the UAC on Vista? I'd look at the queryRegistry syntax first though.

Ah! ...on my account, "DUH!"

Thank you so much for pointing out that parameter #2 should be a variable to RECEIVE the value type. I've had that wrong in my mind the whole time when using rev! {sigh} (2.8.1 never caught that mis-coding problem for me!)

On my Q #2, it seems like 3.5 give less information when an error occurs. It seems 2.8.1 gave a little more verbose text as to what the problem was when trying to execute a problem statement.

Am I wrong? Have I missed a setting/preference in 3.5 to give me more verbose output when an execution error is encountered?

I have just begun using 3.5 and the few execution errors I've encountered just seem to give very little info/insight as to what the engine thinks the problem with the statement is (vs. 2.8.1).

Thanks again!