>Yes, it can seem like an insurmountable task, but stick with it. Confusion
>and frustration are part of the process of learning, but judging by your
>questions, it seems like you are coming very far. You've also got one of
>the best books and one of the best mailing lists to learn from, which is a
>great advantage.
>
I appreciate the time and trouble you took to reply to this posting.
Thank you.
May I also add :
There was a very good tutorial on the web that I learned a lot from too and
I appreciate the writer for taking the time to write it.
http://brennan.young.net/Edu/Lingvad.html
>
>Not quite. Properties can not become globals. They always belong to
>objects. Globals are globals, whether they are actually used everywhere or
>not. It's the accessibility which makes them global. Properties are only
>accessible through the object that they belong to. If you don't have access
>to the object, you don't have access to its properties either (unless you
>are passing multiple references to the same objects around in some way,
>which is an advanced technique).
How is it done?
>
> > In Special Edition using Macromedia 8, Pg282,
> > the author uses the on exitFrame handler to loop. Is this what I
>should be
> > doing instead?
>
>YES! See my other post for a quick example.
I have seen it. Thank you for posting the example.
>
>
>Learning is a leaping process, not a stepping process, so sometimes you
>have to be in mid air with your feet dangling, which can be very
>disorientating.
>
><snip>
>It's not always possible to do this, but I am pretty sure you have
>convinced many of those reading this thread that you have the determination
>to emerge triumphant (and probably exhausted) at the other end.
I am already exhausted�
>Do you drink a lot of coffee, by any chance?
No, I hardly touch it. Should I? More often than not, it�s H20.
>When learning object oriented thinking, it's largely a process of finding
>names for things we didn't know we knew, and trusting those discoveries;
><snip>
>When you use a behavior, you add additional, custom properties to the
>standard set of sprite properties, and any sprites which use that behavior
>can be considered as being of the same 'kind' or 'class'. Sprites without
>this behavior do not get this property, so they are of a different kind -
>and they behave differently because of that.
>
>
I do not quite understand this. However, is it because of this that we have
objected-oriented programming?
Thanks for taking the time to explain so many concepts. You�re certainly
quite a sage.
Genevieve
_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp
[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!]
