The last line of the new handler in "myScript" needs to be:

   return me

I'll bet you are missing that.

Irv

At 12:47 PM -0500 2/21/02, Matthew DeSimone wrote:
>  > At 10:48 -0500 02/21/2002, Matthew DeSimone wrote:
>>
>>  >(my stack is declared on startmovie to be a linear list of 25
>positions)
>>  >
>>  >global myStack
>>  >
>>  >on getStackPointer
>>  >   counter = 1
>>  >   repeat with counter = 1 to myStack.count
>>  >           if myStack[counter] = 0 then
>>  >              myStack[counter] = new(script "myScript")
>>  >              return counter
>>  >           end if
>>  >   end repeat
>>  >end getStackPointer
>>  >
>>  >Everything seems straightforward here, and the script compiles
>without
>>  >syntax errors.  However, when I run the movie and call the handler
>>  >myStack[counter] is always returned as VOID.
>>
>>  Are you sure that your script is being properly instanced?
>>
>If I use the new() call in a single var (my old method), it works fine.
>I also ran a test movie with a  script that would output "child created"
>when "on new me" was called.  The new() call again operates properly
>unless I put it in the structure above, at which point I do not see the
>output, which leads me to believe that the new script is never being
>created/called.
>
>
>>  Also if you are wanting to do something with the counter var, you
>>  need to add ()s after you call the stack pointer script. That is,
>>  this:
>>
>>     somePointer = getStackPointer
>>
>>  likely won't work, whereas this:
>>
>>     somePointer = getStackPointer()
>>
>>  probably will.
>>
>Already am.  My calling syntax for the getStackPointer works fine, its
>just the creation of the object which is giving me angst.
>
>>  Why not set a breakpoint and see what's actually happening in the
>>  debugger?
>>
>>  --
>>
>>                Warren Ockrassa | http://www.nightwares.com/
>Set them all over the getStackPointer handler.  It just seems to never
>create the new instance.  Is there something I'm missing in the parent
>handler itself that I should be declaring in order to make it work
>properly as a child?
>
>~matt desimone
>[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>www.syrupnyc.com
>
>
>[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!]


-- 

Lingo / Director / Shockwave development for all occasions. 
          
   (Home-made Lingo cooked up fresh every day just for you.)
[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!]

Reply via email to