Hi, On 28 okt 2010, at 01:08, Paul Ingraham wrote:
> Jim, thank you. This was a case of so-close-yet-so-far, and I missed > the final bit of syntax as much out of fatigue as anything else. You > know how it is. I appreciate the boost over that final step. ;-) Wait, AppleScript has a syntax? For me AppleScript is the only programming language the I have to approach as a trial and error system. This all too frequently ends in frustration, and then using Python to resolve the issue in a fraction of the time. Too bad BBEdit doesn't respond to AppleEvents while running a unix script. My set of TeX integration scripts use a combination of AppleScript and a shell script (of all things unholy), just because AppleScript alone was too hard for me. Oh well. > But I must admit the dictionary didn’t really help, and probably > wouldn’t have before I posted. Despite years of tinkering experience, > application AS dictionaries continue to seem rather opaque to me > (probably mostly for lack of usage examples). Even looking at the > entry now that I know what works, it’s still not at all clear to me. > The quizzical description for that parameter (it actually reads: > “replace the text to be processed with the results?”) hardly inspired > my confidence in that direction … Glad I'm not alone. These days it is even possible to access Cocoa from AppleScript. I can't see why you'd want to replace the concise if unforgiving Objective-C language with the inconcise, but equally unforgiving, AppleScript language. Maarten -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the "BBEdit Talk" discussion group on Google Groups. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at <http://groups.google.com/group/bbedit?hl=en> If you have a feature request or would like to report a problem, please email "[email protected]" rather than posting to the group. Follow @bbedit on Twitter: <http://www.twitter.com/bbedit>
