Well, it'll help mask errors, but if you have an error, now you'll never
know where it was or what the user was doing.
All you're doing is suppressing the error MESSAGE, but whatever the error
(non-existent variable, undefined handler, non-list, etc), the error will
still exist and will probably raise its ugly head shortly thereafter in
some hard-to-track-down side-effect.
So, yes, you could use it, but you'd be better off giving it a good testing
and getting rid of any bugs.
- Tab
At 09:36 PM 6/8/01 +0300, Pekka Buttler wrote:
>Hi. I'm coworking on a project where every part of the production process
>has suffered delays, except the mastering deadline.
>
>Now I do not usually even consider things like this, but now there's a real
>risc that the product will have some bugs (especially an elusive one, which
>throws a seemingly insignificant Script error, everything works as it should
>even if you 'continue'). Now I gather I could bypass this error by using
>
>on alerthook me, err, msg
> dosomething
> return 1
>end
>, which as far as I can tell would make the script error alert invisible AND
>"click" continue.
>
>Now I have not done this ever..., yet an am slightly nervous, does anyone
>know of any things that this could impact on (run time bug related errors,
>where the user should not click continue).
>
>As far as I can tell, it does not interfere with buddyapi's baMsgBox, and
>baMsgBoxEx, which both are in use.
>
>Feel free to share knowledge, experience and hunches.
>
>Pekka
[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!]
