Re: Goodbye stsMLXEditor

Thanks. I see it now. I'm accustomed to finding licensing info within the download, so it didn't occur to me to go back to the download page to look for it. I don't suppose it *needs* to be in the code or the download necessarily. Anyone wanting to use the code can go back and download you

Re: Goodbye stsMLXEditor

There's a statement at the top of the free stuff page that is my feeble attempt to let everyone know that the code is available for them to use in any form they wish. It could certainly be improved. Does it need to be in the code? It seems really hard to give something away these days. On Thu,

Re: Goodbye stsMLXEditor

Peter Haworth wrote: > On Thu, Sep 3, 2015 at 9:13 AM Richard Gaskin wrote: > >> Peter Haworth wrote: >>> >>> The spell check algorithm catches that. >> >> Got one handy? > > Yep. I guess it's not really a spell checker. It compares two words > to figure out how close they are in spelling so I

Re: Goodbye stsMLXEditor

Yep. I guess it's not really a spell checker. It compares two words to figure out how close they are in spelling so I suppose a spell checker might use it to suggest correct spellings from a dictionary having detected a misspelled word. Download setlocals from http://www.lcsql.com/free-stuff.html

Re: Goodbye stsMLXEditor

Peter Haworth wrote: > On Wed, Sep 2, 2015, 7:38 PM Mark Wiederwrote: > >> The tl;dr is that by letting an algorithm declare variables instead >> of doing the work of finding the missing ones manually you're >> actually compounding the problem. It makes it harder to spot the >> accidental errors

Re: Goodbye stsMLXEditor

The spell check algorithm catches that. On Wed, Sep 2, 2015, 7:38 PM Mark Wieder wrote: > On 09/02/2015 07:10 PM, Peter Haworth wrote: > > Hi Mark, > > You sent me that a few months ago when I was writing my script and I > > incorporated it. > > You don't really expect me to remember things, do

Re: Goodbye stsMLXEditor

On 09/02/2015 07:10 PM, Peter Haworth wrote: Hi Mark, You sent me that a few months ago when I was writing my script and I incorporated it. You don't really expect me to remember things, do you? Not sure what other things might make it a bad idea, The tl;dr is that by letting an algorithm

Re: Goodbye stsMLXEditor

Hi Mark, You sent me that a few months ago when I was writing my script and I incorporated it. Not sure what other things might make it a bad idea, but I do incorporate an algorithm that attempts to find variable names that might be misspellings with various choices on what to do with them. It's

Re: Goodbye stsMLXEditor

On 09/02/2015 12:38 PM, Peter Haworth wrote: Assuming the errors you are referring to are of the "undeclared variable" type, I have a utility that inserts local statements for any undeclared variables. Maybe I should offer it to the team. A number of reasons why this isn't a good idea. But the

Re: Goodbye stsMLXEditor

On Wed, Sep 2, 2015 at 10:59 PM, Mark Wieder wrote: > On 09/02/2015 05:43 AM, Kay C Lan wrote: > > You don't think you're being a bit over dramatic? >>> >> > Who? Me? lol. > > Oh, good. I wasn't too sure, you always strike me as a very knowledgeable and extremely intelligent person and unfortunat

Re: Goodbye stsMLXEditor

Assuming the errors you are referring to are of the "undeclared variable" type, I have a utility that inserts local statements for any undeclared variables. Maybe I should offer it to the team. On Wed, Sep 2, 2015 at 11:26 AM Mark Wieder wrote: > Richard Gaskin writes: > > Good points, and I'v

Re: Goodbye stsMLXEditor

Richard Gaskin writes: Good points, and I've rather given up trying to convince developers to let the IDE help them avoid errors. But there are those of us who think that it might be a good idea to get system stack errors fixed rather than sweeping them under the rug. -- Mark Wieder ahsoftw..

Re: Goodbye stsMLXEditor

Mark Wieder wrote: On 09/02/2015 05:43 AM, Kay C Lan wrote: You don't think you're being a bit over dramatic? Who? Me? lol. Seriously, though... here's a case in point. When I first released PowerDebug it was wide open as far a catching any problems. Soon users started reporting that they w

Re: Goodbye stsMLXEditor

On 09/02/2015 05:43 AM, Kay C Lan wrote: You don't think you're being a bit over dramatic? Who? Me? lol. Seriously, though... here's a case in point. When I first released PowerDebug it was wide open as far a catching any problems. Soon users started reporting that they were seeing weird s

Re: Goodbye stsMLXEditor

On Wed, Sep 2, 2015 at 6:53 AM, Mark Wieder wrote: > > 'Strict Compilation" doesn't do what you think it does > What you really want to do is > set explicitVars true > > Thanks Mark for the explanation. That is very interesting. I've 'Starred' you response because I'm sure this is on of those

Re: Goodbye stsMLXEditor

Peter Haworth writes: >Did I miss that somewhere in the thread? Nope. Just part of the oral history of the IDE. > Perhaps the right way to do it would be to set explicitvars to the value of > the strict compile mode option or provide an option within stsMXL itself. > Unfortunately, don't have t

Re: Goodbye stsMLXEditor

Hah, thanks for that Mark. You are correct, now I see the errors. Did I miss that somewhere in the thread? Going back to the original issue, I guess I should track down the code in the stsMXLEditor plugin that sets the script and set explicitvars before and after it. That will work for me becau

Re: Goodbye stsMLXEditor

Peter Haworth writes: > Entered bug report 15849 for this. Thanks for filing that. What's going on is that the editor preference for 'Strict Compilation" doesn't do what you think it does. It only allows checking for errors in the IDE's script editor (which is why it's in the script editor pref

Re: Goodbye stsMLXEditor

Entered bug report 15849 for this. On Mon, Aug 31, 2015 at 5:44 PM Peter Haworth wrote: > Will do, should have it in there tomorrow. > > On Mon, Aug 31, 2015 at 5:07 PM Kay C Lan > wrote: > >> On Tue, Sep 1, 2015 at 3:52 AM, Peter Haworth wrote: >> >> > >> > I plan to try to reproduce the issu

Re: Goodbye stsMLXEditor

Will do, should have it in there tomorrow. On Mon, Aug 31, 2015 at 5:07 PM Kay C Lan wrote: > On Tue, Sep 1, 2015 at 3:52 AM, Peter Haworth wrote: > > > > > I plan to try to reproduce the issue where strict compile errors are not > > detected by a set script statement and submit it as a bug. >

Re: Goodbye stsMLXEditor

On Tue, Sep 1, 2015 at 3:52 AM, Peter Haworth wrote: > > I plan to try to reproduce the issue where strict compile errors are not > detected by a set script statement and submit it as a bug. > > Thanks Pete, I'm sure you'll post the number here so we can add our comments.

Re: Goodbye stsMLXEditor

On Tue, Sep 1, 2015 at 2:13 AM, J. Landman Gay wrote: Like Mark said, the IDE interprets these for you. But Richard and I created > a quick lookup utility for mobile app testing (where these same raw results > are returned) which you could use for your situation too. > >

Re: Goodbye stsMLXEditor

:use-livecode-boun...@lists.runrev.com] On > Behalf > Of Peter Haworth > Sent: Monday, August 31, 2015 2:44 PM > To: How to use LiveCode > Subject: Re: Goodbye stsMLXEditor > > +1, useful plugin > > On Mon, Aug 31, 2015 at 11:13 AM J. Landman Gay > wrote: > > >

RE: Goodbye stsMLXEditor

, 2015 2:44 PM To: How to use LiveCode Subject: Re: Goodbye stsMLXEditor +1, useful plugin On Mon, Aug 31, 2015 at 11:13 AM J. Landman Gay wrote: > On 8/30/2015 7:46 PM, Kay C Lan wrote: > > Clicked on btn 'one' and I get this: > > > > 117,3,8 > > 265,3,

Re: Goodbye stsMLXEditor

+1, useful plugin On Mon, Aug 31, 2015 at 11:13 AM J. Landman Gay wrote: > On 8/30/2015 7:46 PM, Kay C Lan wrote: > > Clicked on btn 'one' and I get this: > > > > 117,3,8 > > 265,3,8 > > 394,3,8 > > 395,3,8 > > 319,3,8 > > 166,3,8 > > 165,3,8 > > Like Mark said, the IDE interprets these for you.

Re: Goodbye stsMLXEditor

On 8/30/2015 7:46 PM, Kay C Lan wrote: Clicked on btn 'one' and I get this: 117,3,8 265,3,8 394,3,8 395,3,8 319,3,8 166,3,8 165,3,8 Like Mark said, the IDE interprets these for you. But Richard and I created a quick lookup utility for mobile app testing (where these same raw results are retu

Re: Goodbye stsMLXEditor

On Sun, Aug 30, 2015 at 3:31 PM, Peter Haworth wrote: > However it seems that not all errors are detected. So far the missing > errors are those associated with Strict Compile mode, e.g. missing local > variable definitions, missing quotes around certain language elements. > The built in editor

Re: Goodbye stsMLXEditor

I wonder if there is an issue for me because of windows version (windows only) No error reports, no scripts set, blocked until closing the editor. (windows 10) Making the change solves the issue, but then no errors are reported. Guess I should restart and hope. (I love windows) I'll hush now.

Re: Goodbye stsMLXEditor

On Mon, Aug 31, 2015 at 10:01 AM, Peter Haworth wrote: > > If I get a chance, I will check out the sts plugin code and see if changing > it to check the result after setting the script fixes it. Sounds like it > will. > > But then you have a Catch22 - I expect the result will be empty so your sc

Re: Goodbye stsMLXEditor

Thanks for checking that out Kay. I am using LC 7.0.6 but I'm sure the same condition applies. If I get a chance, I will check out the sts plugin code and see if changing it to check the result after setting the script fixes it. Sounds like it will. Mark's right about interpreting the numbers.

Re: Goodbye stsMLXEditor

On Mon, Aug 31, 2015 at 9:33 AM, Mark Wieder wrote: Well, yes and no. Unfortunately that message is no longer being sent. > There's a bug report in the system to try to get it back, but it's been > languishing from lack of attention for quite some time. > > But what about the fact that the result

Re: Goodbye stsMLXEditor

On 08/30/2015 05:46 PM, Kay C Lan wrote: There would seem to be two issues, firstly the different level of Compilation checking, and secondly, the Dictionary entry for 'scriptParseError' implies that the error message we are going to get is human readable. What currently is presented in the resu

Re: Goodbye stsMLXEditor

I decided to give this another try since I really like using Textmate. The plugin watches the modified date of the Textmate file and if it changes ,sets the script of the related object to the contents of the file. If any compile errors are detected, the plugin displays them in a window. However

Re: Goodbye stsMLXEditor

Peter Haworth wrote: > Did lots of script editing in Textmate today via stsMXL plugin. Saved > several times along the way, quit TextMate and Livecode. Next time I > ran Livecode, all my edits were gone. Maybe it needed a final save or > something but should have received warnings if so. > > B

Goodbye stsMLXEditor

Did lots of script editing in Textmate today via stsMXL plugin. Saved several times along the way, quit TextMate and Livecode. Next time I ran Livecode, all my edits were gone. Maybe it needed a final save or something but should have received warnings if so. Back to the IDE SE for me _