Hi Bhakti
I just did a little test, simple movie (kinda annoying to work with) but it
basically worked likes this:
frame 2 framescript
on exitFrame
it = new(Script "Test")
end exitFrame
frame 5 framescript
on exitFrame
go the frame
end exitFrame
please note that in the first exitframe handler on frame 2, it is a local
variable.
Parent Script named "Test"
property pSpecialTimer
property pCount
on new me
pSpecialTimer = timeOut("theName").new(0, #someNonExistantHandler, me)
pSpecialTimer.persistent = true
return me
end new
on exitFrame me
pCount = pCount + 1
if pCount = 300 then
put "Hello"
pCount = 0
end if
end exitFrame
on remove me
if objectP(pSpecialTimer) then
pSpecialTimer.forget()
end if
end remove
run the movie
-- every so often you will see the line:
--"Hello"
there should be just enough time to do type a few messages into the message
window to see what is actually going on.
put the timeOutList
put the timeOutList
-- [timeOut("theName")]
put the timeOutList[1].target
-- <offspring "test" 2 1d7714>
of course the odd time the word "Hello" will appear so you have to work
reasonably fast.
if you type:
the timeOutList[1].target.remove()
then "Hello" no longer appears
put the timeOutList
--[]
So it appears that you can safely store a reference to an object into the
timeoutList stored as the target of the timeOut object
Of course I could well have just destroyed the object by killing the
reference to the timeOut object itself:
the timeOutList[1].forget()
or
timeOut("theName").forget()
Remember, a reference to the timeOut object itself is stored in the property
of the original object and thus I didn't need to type the name of the
timeOut object as you suggested, rather just call forget on the reference to
the timeOut object, ie:
pSpecialTimer.forget()
I guess it would be more "proper" to not crossreference the two objects, I
haven't tested it but you should in theory be able to not store the
reference to the timeOut object in the actual object. I hadn't actually
thought of the fact that the timeout object reference to the the "test"
object would hold that "test" object in memory, but it certainly beats
having to store it in a global object, but it makes for one nasty mess of
trying to reference it... but that's another story. If it is simply running
along doing a repetitive function based on start, stop or frame events then
it might be a fairly good idea. Of course you can always get the reference
back by retrieving the target of the timeOut object provided that its name
is a "constant".
Okay, I'll quit blabbering on.
Sincerely
Mark
--------------------------------------------
Mark R. Jonkman
Mark R. Jonkman Consulting
ADDRESS: 20 Windermere Crt., Guelph, ON, CANADA N1E 3L4
PHONE: 519-837-8509
EMAIL: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--------------------------------------------
[To remove yourself from this list, or to change to digest mode, go to
http://www.penworks.com/LUJ/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!]
