LiveCode Forums.

I like 'the messagepath' as well. I like both.

trevordevore wrote:I like 'the messagepath' as well.

I like it too, provided the objects are listed in top-down order (first to receive down to last).

There's a religious war in the xTalk world about how the message path should be represented, with some preferring that representations follow the natural top-down reading order, and others preferring we follow Goodman's mistake in using an inverted diagram for a bottom-up listing. You can tell which side of the fence I'm on.

I'm for top down as well. Just implement it before Ken Ray joins the discussion

trevordevore wrote:I'm for top down as well. Just implement it before Ken Ray joins the discussion

Is Ken a bottom-upper? Infidel!

Thanks for taking that on. It'll be very helpful.

Jerry Daniels called it "sky worshippers" and "earth worshippers" which I thought was amusingly accurate.

I think of it as front-to-back. I don't know what that makes me.

horizon-worshiper... shun him o ye faithful

From an implementation sense, front to back (or should that be top to bottom) makes sense - since that's the order the engine processes the message path when actually delivering messages... Also, due to the way the object hierarchy is represented, it is more efficeint to traverse front to back, less so back to front. (I shall avoid getting into any religious war on the matter - I suspect which view is appropriate depends on the context in which you are trying to explain it).

Going back to the subject of inherited behaviors - in particular 'this me'. We're going to go with 'this me' being experimental in 6.1.1 - with a view to finalizing the syntax in the next major release. This allows a modicum more discussion about it as well as more time to try and integrate 'the <something>' into the parser which (having just looked at it in more detail) is a little more involved than I had remembered...

integrate 'the <something>' into the parser which (having just looked at it in more detail) is a little more involved than I had remembered...

...having just wrestled with the parser to try to integrate "substack" and "memory", I can relate to that.

I just saw the release notes for v6.1.1rc4 - how did "this me" wind up in an actual engine build? There were so many clearer alternatives presented here that I'd thought "this me" was bought up only for humor, no?

Will we see an "aint" operator soon?

FourthWorld wrote:Will we see an "aint" operator soon?

Klaus wrote:

FourthWorld wrote:Will we see an "aint" operator soon?

http://quality.runrev.com/show_bug.cgi?id=3157

@FourthWorld I believe it was left as is for this release until the syntax is decided upon

v6.1.1rc4? Any idea where I can download this?