On 9/3/05 4:45 pm, "Anthony W. Fouts, Jr." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> I have been using the following syntax for quite some time for calling
> methods in behaviors attached to sprites:
>
> -- sendsprite(spriteNum, #callSomeMethod, someParameter)
>
> It occurred to me that I call methods in child objects stored in variables
> using dot syntax . So I tried the following to call a method in a behavior
> attached to sprite:
>
> -- sprite(spriteNum).callSomeMethod(someParameter)
>
> However it produced unexpected results. How does the second differ from the
> first?
Hi Anthony,
Here's the summary of a recent discussion of this issue on other lists.
Thank Macromedia's Tom Higgins where appropriate.
These techniques are the same except when it comes to handling cases
where the method doesn't exist, in which case ...
sprite(spriteNum).callSomeMethod(someParameter)
... will cause a script error.
It's also different in that the 'me' parameter turns out to be a
sprite reference, not a behavior instance:
-- Behavior
on method(me)
put me
end
-- Message Window
sendSprite(1, #method)
-- <offspring "Behavior" 4 88ba810>
sprite(1).method()
-- (sprite 1)
call(#method, sprite 1)
-- (sprite 1)
Does this help you clear up the unexpected results?
James
[To remove yourself from this list, or to change to digest mode, go to
http://www.penworks.com/lingo-l.cgi To post messages to the list, email
[email protected] (Problems, email [EMAIL PROTECTED]). Lingo-L is for
learning and helping with programming Lingo. Thanks!]
