Re: Call vs Send
Dennis- Thursday, June 9, 2005, 7:39:52 PM, you wrote: DB It simulates the stock markets (every stock) for the past ten years, Now *there's* a depressing idea... on SimulateStockMarketForLastTenYears create graphic tanked set the style of it to line set the points of it to 0,0,200,200 end SimulateStockMarketForLastTenYears g ...no big arrays involved... -- -Mark Wieder [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ use-revolution mailing list use-revolution@lists.runrev.com http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution
Re: Call vs Send
Now why didn't I think of that. It's so simple! Leave it to Rev to be able to script a complex problem in a simple way. However, I think the points should be two lines bubble and tanked --and we haven't got to the end of the tanked line yet. Dennis On Jun 10, 2005, at 12:18 PM, Mark Wieder wrote: Dennis- Thursday, June 9, 2005, 7:39:52 PM, you wrote: DB It simulates the stock markets (every stock) for the past ten years, Now *there's* a depressing idea... on SimulateStockMarketForLastTenYears create graphic tanked set the style of it to line set the points of it to 0,0,200,200 end SimulateStockMarketForLastTenYears g ...no big arrays involved... -- -Mark Wieder [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ use-revolution mailing list use-revolution@lists.runrev.com http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution ___ use-revolution mailing list use-revolution@lists.runrev.com http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution
Re: Call vs Send
Hi Dennis, Nonworking script in field PN1: on mouseUp call SaveMeTxt end mouseUp Did you try call SaveMeText ? Per Transcript Dictionary (call command), The entire handler including parameters must be enclosed in quotes. Rob Cozens CCW Serendipity Software Company And I, which was two fooles, do so grow three; Who are a little wise, the best fooles bee. from The Triple Foole by John Donne (1572-1631) ___ use-revolution mailing list use-revolution@lists.runrev.com http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution
Re: Call vs Send
Rob, Yes I did. Both seem to work if you don't have parameters. But as I posted, the call is not required to get the proper functionality. Dennis On Jun 9, 2005, at 9:07 AM, Rob Cozens wrote: Hi Dennis, Nonworking script in field PN1: on mouseUp call SaveMeTxt end mouseUp Did you try call SaveMeText ? Per Transcript Dictionary (call command), The entire handler including parameters must be enclosed in quotes. Rob Cozens CCW Serendipity Software Company And I, which was two fooles, do so grow three; Who are a little wise, the best fooles bee. from The Triple Foole by John Donne (1572-1631) ___ use-revolution mailing list use-revolution@lists.runrev.com http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution ___ use-revolution mailing list use-revolution@lists.runrev.com http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution
Re: Call vs Send
Dennis Brown wrote: Richard, Going through your tutorial is what made me try to improve my scripts with call. I thought that the call would execute a script in another place but keep the context of where it was called from. So 'me' would be the field that the call originated from and not the card that the script was in. But after a test, it looks like that is not the case --too bad. Does send do what you need? It is the target that returns the name of my field, but the group name is left off which is bad for me because I have the same name repeated in many differently named groups. I have groups of fields and buttons that are created from templates on the fly, along with many saved values for each (in custom properties). These are related to various setup conditions for running simulations. I obviously want the minimum scripts in the duplicates, and most of the script in a common place where changes are manageable. Perhaps you should be prepared to make sure nobody else makes this mistake in your tutorial. Using the long id of the target will provide an absolute reference to the specific object, but I'm not sure why simply the target doesn't return the same value. Hmmm makes the target rather less useful, unless there's a benefit to the truncated descriptor it returns that I'm just not seeing. But to be honest, it's very rare that I use either call or send. Both are up there with do in terms of a modest amount of additional overhead needed to handle them relative to calls natively in the message path. Could there be another way to handle that using the native message path, maybe a common handler in the master group or card script? Also, what sort of simulation are you working on? -- Richard Gaskin Fourth World Media Corporation ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.FourthWorld.com ___ use-revolution mailing list use-revolution@lists.runrev.com http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution
Re: Call vs Send
On Jun 9, 2005, at 9:23 PM, Richard Gaskin wrote: Using the long id of the target will provide an absolute reference to the specific object, but I'm not sure why simply the target doesn't return the same value. Hmmm makes the target rather less useful, unless there's a benefit to the truncated descriptor it returns that I'm just not seeing. I found that the long name of the target is what was required to get me what I needed. But to be honest, it's very rare that I use either call or send. Both are up there with do in terms of a modest amount of additional overhead needed to handle them relative to calls natively in the message path. Speaking of do. That is another on that should be combined with these call/send in a tutorial. I try to avoid it, but I have to use it often because I don't know any other way to reference a variable or a custom property who's name is in a variable --though for speed reasons, I never do this inside a critical loop. Very useful when making complex one card stacks that would be a memory and support killer with many cards. Could there be another way to handle that using the native message path, maybe a common handler in the master group or card script? Yes that is what worked. I put the common scripts in my card script now and use the native message path. Also, what sort of simulation are you working on? It simulates the stock markets (every stock) for the past ten years, looking for algorithmic and statistical relationships in the performance. There is a lot of data, which is why I have been pushing the speed thing in large arrays. I have worked on similar, but less aggressive simulations many years ago in HyperCard, then SuperCard, and I was just considering a switch to MetaCard (for speed reasons) when the previous project was dropped. I haven't done anything in programming for the last 5 years, until this project came up --so everything is new again. Dennis ___ use-revolution mailing list use-revolution@lists.runrev.com http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution
Re: Call vs Send
On 6/9/05 6:23 PM, Richard Gaskin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Using the long id of the target will provide an absolute reference to the specific object, but I'm not sure why simply the target doesn't return the same value. Hmmm makes the target rather less useful, unless there's a benefit to the truncated descriptor it returns that I'm just not seeing. The truncated descriptor enables the simple structure if the target is me in handlers for system messages and even application messages. What are the relative timings of handlers in the message path vs. handlers outside? -- Dick ___ use-revolution mailing list use-revolution@lists.runrev.com http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution
Re: Call vs Send
Dick Kriesel wrote: On 6/9/05 6:23 PM, Richard Gaskin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Using the long id of the target will provide an absolute reference to the specific object, but I'm not sure why simply the target doesn't return the same value. Hmmm makes the target rather less useful, unless there's a benefit to the truncated descriptor it returns that I'm just not seeing. The truncated descriptor enables the simple structure if the target is me in handlers for system messages and even application messages. That would still work if both the target and me used absolute references. Within scripts the engine seems to know what the target refers to, but looking at the string returned when asking for the target we should expect confusion if there are two such objects with the same name. Curious inconsistency What are the relative timings of handlers in the message path vs. handlers outside? About twice as long, but as with many benchmarks with Transcript it hardly matters: twice as long sounds like a big deal, but on my 1GHz G4 that's still less than a microsecond. :) -- Richard Gaskin Fourth World Media Corporation __ Rev tools and more: http://www.fourthworld.com/rev ___ use-revolution mailing list use-revolution@lists.runrev.com http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution
Re: Call vs Send
On Jun 9, 2005, at 9:51 PM, Richard Gaskin wrote: What are the relative timings of handlers in the message path vs. handlers outside? About twice as long, but as with many benchmarks with Transcript it hardly matters: twice as long sounds like a big deal, but on my 1GHz G4 that's still less than a microsecond. :) Do you mean millisecond? I find addition to be less than a microsecond, but a path call is 8 to 15 microseconds for the 3rd invocation and up. A send or call takes 50 to 70 microseconds for the 3rd call and up. (2 short parameters) Maybe we should compare notes. This is on a dual 1.25 GHz G4. Dar -- ** DSC (Dar Scott Consulting Dar's Lab) http://www.swcp.com/dsc/ Yahoo! RevCon West in one week! ** ___ use-revolution mailing list use-revolution@lists.runrev.com http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution
Re: Call vs Send
On 6/9/05 6:23 PM, Richard Gaskin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: But to be honest, it's very rare that I use either call or send. Both are up there with do in terms of a modest amount of additional overhead needed to handle them relative to calls natively in the message path. On 6/9/05 8:51 PM, Richard Gaskin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: What are the relative timings of handlers in the message path vs. handlers outside? About twice as long, but as with many benchmarks with Transcript it hardly matters: twice as long sounds like a big deal, but on my 1GHz G4 that's still less than a microsecond. :) Are there stronger reasons for you to use call and send very rarely? I ask because I've been using send a lot. -- Dick ___ use-revolution mailing list use-revolution@lists.runrev.com http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution
Re: Call vs Send
Dar Scott wrote: On Jun 9, 2005, at 9:51 PM, Richard Gaskin wrote: What are the relative timings of handlers in the message path vs. handlers outside? About twice as long, but as with many benchmarks with Transcript it hardly matters: twice as long sounds like a big deal, but on my 1GHz G4 that's still less than a microsecond. :) Do you mean millisecond? I find addition to be less than a microsecond, but a path call is 8 to 15 microseconds for the 3rd invocation and up. A send or call takes 50 to 70 microseconds for the 3rd call and up. (2 short parameters) Maybe we should compare notes. This is on a dual 1.25 GHz G4. No, my bad: I slipped a digit. My times were: 0.00336 0.00871 Using this script: -- in button used to run the test: on mouseUp put 10 into tMax -- put the millisecs into t repeat tMax foo get the result world end repeat put the millisecs - t into t1 -- put the millisecs into t repeat tMax call foo of btn test get the result world end repeat put the millisecs - t into t2 -- put t1/tMax t2/tMax end mouseUp -- in card and in btn test: on foo return hello end foo Even so, a 5 microsecond difference isn't bad for most needs, esp. considering how rarely one truly needs to use either call or send. -- Richard Gaskin Fourth World Media Corporation ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.FourthWorld.com ___ use-revolution mailing list use-revolution@lists.runrev.com http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution
Re: Call vs Send
Dick Kriesel wrote: On 6/9/05 6:23 PM, Richard Gaskin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: But to be honest, it's very rare that I use either call or send. Both are up there with do in terms of a modest amount of additional overhead needed to handle them relative to calls natively in the message path. On 6/9/05 8:51 PM, Richard Gaskin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: What are the relative timings of handlers in the message path vs. handlers outside? About twice as long, but as with many benchmarks with Transcript it hardly matters: twice as long sounds like a big deal, but on my 1GHz G4 that's still less than a microsecond. :) Are there stronger reasons for you to use call and send very rarely? I ask because I've been using send a lot. I don't feel too strongly about it one way or another. I just don't find myself needing send often in the stuff I'm doing. But if you need it I see no harm in using it. -- Richard Gaskin Fourth World Media Corporation __ Rev tools and more: http://www.fourthworld.com/rev ___ use-revolution mailing list use-revolution@lists.runrev.com http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution
Re: Call vs Send
Dennis Brown wrote: I have two versions of a script. The first uses an implicit send and works. The second uses a call and does not work. I was trying to simplify and expand my scripting abilities with call, but I must be missing something, because I can't see what is wrong with it. I appreciate any insights. The stack for this coming Saturday's online conference has a demo in it called Call vs Send, with a discussion of the differences between the two: http://support.runrev.com/scriptingconferences/ -- Richard Gaskin Fourth World Media Corporation __ Rev tools and more: http://www.fourthworld.com/rev ___ use-revolution mailing list use-revolution@lists.runrev.com http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution
Re: Call vs Send
On Jun 8, 2005, at 1:54 PM, Dennis Brown wrote: I have two versions of a script. The first uses an implicit send and works. The second uses a call and does not work. I was trying to simplify and expand my scripting abilities with call, but I must be missing something, because I can't see what is wrong with it. I appreciate any insights. There are some differences between the 1) implicit send or invocation and 2) send call. There are also differences between send and call. They might not apply to this particular case, but they might to some things you might try. The 'me' refers to the object that holds the script. An alternative you can use is 'the target' which is the name of the object that the original (top level) message was sent to. That is changed on a send or call. A send or call can have parameters. In your case you might be able to use 'the target' unless it runs into ambiguity problems. You might be better off passing 'the id of me' and letting the support function get what it needs from that. Like this: saveMeTxt the long id of me Unfortunately, 'the target' is suitable in only well controlled cases. It might not uniquely identify the target. (There is also an unsupported way.) dar -- ** DSC (Dar Scott Consulting Dar's Lab) http://www.swcp.com/dsc/ Programming and software ** ___ use-revolution mailing list use-revolution@lists.runrev.com http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution
Re: Call vs Send
On Jun 8, 2005, at 5:33 PM, Dar Scott wrote: (There is also an unsupported way.) dar Dar, now, I am curious... Andre -- Andre Alves Garzia 2004 Soap Dog Studios - BRAZIL http://studio.soapdog.org ___ use-revolution mailing list use-revolution@lists.runrev.com http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution
Re: Call vs Send
Richard, Going through your tutorial is what made me try to improve my scripts with call. I thought that the call would execute a script in another place but keep the context of where it was called from. So 'me' would be the field that the call originated from and not the card that the script was in. But after a test, it looks like that is not the case --too bad. It is the target that returns the name of my field, but the group name is left off which is bad for me because I have the same name repeated in many differently named groups. I have groups of fields and buttons that are created from templates on the fly, along with many saved values for each (in custom properties). These are related to various setup conditions for running simulations. I obviously want the minimum scripts in the duplicates, and most of the script in a common place where changes are manageable. Perhaps you should be prepared to make sure nobody else makes this mistake in your tutorial. Thanks, Dennis On Jun 8, 2005, at 4:04 PM, Richard Gaskin wrote: Dennis Brown wrote: I have two versions of a script. The first uses an implicit send and works. The second uses a call and does not work. I was trying to simplify and expand my scripting abilities with call, but I must be missing something, because I can't see what is wrong with it. I appreciate any insights. The stack for this coming Saturday's online conference has a demo in it called Call vs Send, with a discussion of the differences between the two: http://support.runrev.com/scriptingconferences/ -- Richard Gaskin Fourth World Media Corporation __ Rev tools and more: http://www.fourthworld.com/rev ___ use-revolution mailing list use-revolution@lists.runrev.com http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution ___ use-revolution mailing list use-revolution@lists.runrev.com http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution
Re: Call vs Send
Dar, Yes, you see my problem exactly. It is the target that returns the name of my field, but the group name is left off which is bad for me because I have the same name repeated in many differently named groups. I have groups of fields and buttons that are created from templates on the fly, along with many saved values for each (in custom properties). These are related to various setup conditions for running simulations. I obviously want the minimum scripts in the duplicates, and most of the script in a common place where changes are manageable. I am already using a script that pass the name and group to the handler, but I wanted to make it even simpler and just call the routine without generating a parameter to pass. Thanks, Dennis On Jun 8, 2005, at 4:33 PM, Dar Scott wrote: On Jun 8, 2005, at 1:54 PM, Dennis Brown wrote: I have two versions of a script. The first uses an implicit send and works. The second uses a call and does not work. I was trying to simplify and expand my scripting abilities with call, but I must be missing something, because I can't see what is wrong with it. I appreciate any insights. There are some differences between the 1) implicit send or invocation and 2) send call. There are also differences between send and call. They might not apply to this particular case, but they might to some things you might try. The 'me' refers to the object that holds the script. An alternative you can use is 'the target' which is the name of the object that the original (top level) message was sent to. That is changed on a send or call. A send or call can have parameters. In your case you might be able to use 'the target' unless it runs into ambiguity problems. You might be better off passing 'the id of me' and letting the support function get what it needs from that. Like this: saveMeTxt the long id of me Unfortunately, 'the target' is suitable in only well controlled cases. It might not uniquely identify the target. (There is also an unsupported way.) dar -- ** DSC (Dar Scott Consulting Dar's Lab) http://www.swcp.com/dsc/ Programming and software ** ___ use-revolution mailing list use-revolution@lists.runrev.com http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution ___ use-revolution mailing list use-revolution@lists.runrev.com http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution
Re: Call vs Send
On Jun 8, 2005, at 2:48 PM, Andre Garzia wrote: (There is also an unsupported way.) now, I am curious... the executionContexts ___ use-revolution mailing list use-revolution@lists.runrev.com http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution
Re: Call vs Send
Dennis -- You can find the name of the group that contains the target in the long name of the target. -- Dick On 6/8/05 2:03 PM, Dennis Brown [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Dar, Yes, you see my problem exactly. It is the target that returns the name of my field, but the group name is left off which is bad for me because I have the same name repeated in many differently named groups. I have groups of fields and buttons that are created from templates on the fly, along with many saved values for each (in custom properties). These are related to various setup conditions for running simulations. I obviously want the minimum scripts in the duplicates, and most of the script in a common place where changes are manageable. I am already using a script that pass the name and group to the handler, but I wanted to make it even simpler and just call the routine without generating a parameter to pass. Thanks, Dennis On Jun 8, 2005, at 4:33 PM, Dar Scott wrote: On Jun 8, 2005, at 1:54 PM, Dennis Brown wrote: I have two versions of a script. The first uses an implicit send and works. The second uses a call and does not work. I was trying to simplify and expand my scripting abilities with call, but I must be missing something, because I can't see what is wrong with it. I appreciate any insights. There are some differences between the 1) implicit send or invocation and 2) send call. There are also differences between send and call. They might not apply to this particular case, but they might to some things you might try. The 'me' refers to the object that holds the script. An alternative you can use is 'the target' which is the name of the object that the original (top level) message was sent to. That is changed on a send or call. A send or call can have parameters. In your case you might be able to use 'the target' unless it runs into ambiguity problems. You might be better off passing 'the id of me' and letting the support function get what it needs from that. Like this: saveMeTxt the long id of me Unfortunately, 'the target' is suitable in only well controlled cases. It might not uniquely identify the target. (There is also an unsupported way.) dar -- ** DSC (Dar Scott Consulting Dar's Lab) http://www.swcp.com/dsc/ Programming and software ** ___ use-revolution mailing list use-revolution@lists.runrev.com http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution ___ use-revolution mailing list use-revolution@lists.runrev.com http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution ___ use-revolution mailing list use-revolution@lists.runrev.com http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution
Re: Call vs Send
On Jun 8, 2005, at 3:03 PM, Dennis Brown wrote: Yes, you see my problem exactly. It is the target that returns the name of my field, but the group name is left off which is bad for me because I have the same name repeated in many differently named groups. I have groups of fields and buttons that are created from templates on the fly, along with many saved values for each (in custom properties). These are related to various setup conditions for running simulations. I obviously want the minimum scripts in the duplicates, and most of the script in a common place where changes are manageable. I am already using a script that pass the name and group to the handler, but I wanted to make it even simpler and just call the routine without generating a parameter to pass. This is a problem that I have in making custom controls. The simplest thing to do is pass 'the long id of me' and use that to get the owner and siblings. This deserves a new feature suggestion. Changing 'the target' might break some code. Adding idiomatic meaning to 'the long id of the target' might be confusing. Maybe 'the target' can be an object whose text meaning is what it is now, but will work with 'the long id of'. The same with 'the owner of'. That is, 'the target' and 'the owner of' are objects. I might be confused as to what is happening. Dar -- ** DSC (Dar Scott Consulting Dar's Lab) http://www.swcp.com/dsc/ Programming and software ** ___ use-revolution mailing list use-revolution@lists.runrev.com http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution
Re: Call vs Send
On Jun 8, 2005, at 3:16 PM, Dick Kriesel wrote: You can find the name of the group that contains the target in the long name of the target. That only gets you the name of a group that contains something with the same name as the target. Unlike 'me', 'the target' does not uniquely identify the desired object. Dar -- ** DSC (Dar Scott Consulting Dar's Lab) http://www.swcp.com/dsc/ Programming and software ** ___ use-revolution mailing list use-revolution@lists.runrev.com http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution
Re: Call vs Send
Dar, Yes, you see my problem exactly. It is the target that returns the name of my field, but the group name is left off which is bad for me because I have the same name repeated in many differently named groups. I have groups of fields and buttons that are created from templates on the fly, along with many saved values for each (in custom properties). get the short name of the owner of fld x will give you the group name within which btn x resides. This syntax assumes that all passed objects are certain to be in a group. Otherwise, get the owner ans inspect the first word for the type of object. Robert ___ use-revolution mailing list use-revolution@lists.runrev.com http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution
Re: Call vs Send
On Jun 8, 2005, at 3:16 PM, Dick Kriesel wrote: You can find the name of the group that contains the target in the long name of the target. That only gets you the name of a group that contains something with the same name as the target. Unlike 'me', 'the target' does not uniquely identify the desired object. Dar Hmm, I just created two groups named differently, each with a button of the same name. Each button called same a handler on the card with: get the short name of the owner of the target This returned a different, and correct, group name depending which button I clicked. Isn't this what the original poster wanted? Similarly get the id of the target returns the proper, and unique, id of the button clicked. So while the target itself returns incomplete description to uniquely identify an object, it can still be used to get unique identification as far as I can see. Robert ___ use-revolution mailing list use-revolution@lists.runrev.com http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution
Re: Call vs Send
On Jun 8, 2005, at 5:13 PM, Robert Brenstein wrote: Similarly get the id of the target returns the proper, and unique, id of the button clicked. So while the target itself returns incomplete description to uniquely identify an object, it can still be used to get unique identification as far as I can see. You are right. I even tried the long id. I even tried it in a card handler called by the mouseup. I must have slipped universes again. Where I came from that didn't work. We had to use 'me'. Sigh. Dar ___ use-revolution mailing list use-revolution@lists.runrev.com http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution
Re: Call vs Send
Thanks Robert,Dick,Dar,Richard,, --empty item at end of list in case I forgot anyone ;-) That is the answer I need. In my button or field script I can just put: on mouseUp --this was actually called by another button and not actually clicked on by me DoMyFieldScript --couldn't be simpler end mouseUp Then in the card I put: on DoMyFieldScript put the long name of the target into myCompletePath put (token 1 to 5 of the long name of the targetquote into myNameAndGroup put the id of the target into myID --many ways to use this reference put (token 1 to 5 of the long name of fld id myID)quote into myNameAndGroup put the short name of fld id myID into myName etc.,etc.,etc... end DoMyFieldScript This is such a basic concept for consolidating multiple object scripts that need to refer to the calling object --and it turns out to be simple. It seems like a whole scripting tutorial could be devoted to all the theme and variations on this target etc. concept. A simple example of each variation along with how and why it should be used would be a great reference. I am sure there are many more tricks like this than I am aware of yet. Dennis On Jun 8, 2005, at 7:13 PM, Robert Brenstein wrote: On Jun 8, 2005, at 3:16 PM, Dick Kriesel wrote: You can find the name of the group that contains the target in the long name of the target. Hmm, I just created two groups named differently, each with a button of the same name. Each button called same a handler on the card with: get the short name of the owner of the target This returned a different, and correct, group name depending which button I clicked. Isn't this what the original poster wanted? Similarly get the id of the target returns the proper, and unique, id of the button clicked. So while the target itself returns incomplete description to uniquely identify an object, it can still be used to get unique identification as far as I can see. Robert ___ use-revolution mailing list use-revolution@lists.runrev.com http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution ___ use-revolution mailing list use-revolution@lists.runrev.com http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution
