On 5/14/04 4:50 AM, "Mark Goodman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Read the thread entire thread jerk. If you don't have something constructive > to say just put a cork in it. > > > on 5/13/04 10:35 PM, John C. Welch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >>> There is not one specific thing that I want to do. I just know that if I had >>> this functionality it would open up more possibilities for me an other >>> Entourage user that shy away from writing AppleScripts. >> >> So you don't know what you want to do, but that rules should do this thing >> you can't define. >> >> Oh THAT won't take an infinite amount of code I have. You want something that is QED now via AppleScript. You don't like AppleScript. You want Rules to morph into something that duplicates the features of AppleScript, advanced finds, and every other single program feature, yet, somehow are as easy to use as they are now. It doesn't work that way, not in the current laws of physics. The more complex you make something, the more complex it is to use. I can at least ALMOST see a reason to link rules and schedules. It could be handy, and it wouldn't require making rules ten times more complex than they already are. But there's no way to make rules into something that parallels FileMaker Pro's scripting language without it becoming as complex and hard to learn as a scripting language, which is, I believe, something your cramped brain has no time to learn. john -- "By filing this PCR you have challenged the honor of my family. �Prepare to die!" - 3rd most commonly uttered Klingon programmer phrase -- To unsubscribe: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> archives: <http://www.mail-archive.com/entourage-talk%40lists.letterrip.com/> old-archive: <http://www.mail-archive.com/entourage-talk%40lists.boingo.com/>
