> The reason I wanted to have these instances
> in a list is purely for data encapsulation,
> to be able to access the methods available for that
> parent script and to make a call to the handlers
> within the behavior(UI-wrapper for this parent script).
> making the list global or adding these instances
> in the actorList defeats the purpose.
Why are you anti-globalisation? ;)
I'm not clear about your needs - you want to instantiate some parent scripts
as child objects and talk to/use these objects. In order to communicate with
them you need a reference to the object. The question is: where to store
these references so that you can get them. You don't want to use global
variables and you don't want to drop them in the actorList. Why do either of
these approaches defeat the purpose? Is it appropriate to make these objects
ancestors of behaviors? Can you daisy-chain them all together using
ancestorship so that you need store a reference to only the last child? Even
if you set up mutual references between all of them, if you don't keep a
reference to at least one of them then they're lost-in-RAM somewhere.
What about using an uninstantiated parent script for your storage. If you
want to store this info, it has to go somewhere (accessible).
-Sean.
[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!]
