> On 31 Aug 2015, at 3:45 pm, Mark Wieder wrote:
>
> On 08/28/2015 02:32 AM, Richmond wrote:
>> Or, put another way; will Atom work as a Git GUI?
>>
>> I am downloading a selection of Linux Git GUIs which all look far more
>> primitive than Atom . . .
>
> Not sure what you mean by 'Git GUI'...
On 08/28/2015 02:32 AM, Richmond wrote:
Or, put another way; will Atom work as a Git GUI?
I am downloading a selection of Linux Git GUIs which all look far more
primitive than Atom . . .
Not sure what you mean by 'Git GUI'...
If you want to use as a text editor for gui, then by
all means do
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
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.
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
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
As the author of PowerDebug I was wondering if you had any insight into the
different levels of syntax checking LC applies when setting the script of
an object vs using the Scipt Editor. This is being discussed under the
recently posted Subject: Goodbye stsMLXEditor
Also any insight into deciipher
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
Never mind, I found the answer over on the forums from the last time I
posted this question. Instead of downloading the file, copy the code out
of gitHub, then in your ~/Library/Application Support/TextWrangler/Language
Modules/LiveCodeBuilder.plist file, save the code. Why that works when
downlo
On 2015-08-30 20:12, Mike Kerner wrote:
That doesn't suck. Now I have more to tinker with...
Tinker away, and have fun! I'm hoping to write some more follow-up blog
posts, but might not have time until mid-September.
Peter
--
Dr Peter Brett
LiveCode Open Sourc
sometimes we need to cite behaviors in two locations.
In attempts to solve the problem I looked in the dictionary under
traversalOn
and
autotab
in the former we need to say:
"If any field on a card has it's traversalOn set to true, clicking where
on that stack/card will move the focus of t
That doesn't suck. Now I have more to tinker with...
On Sun, Aug 30, 2015 at 9:03 AM, Peter TB Brett
wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> I wrote a blog post with a brief introduction to writing, compiling and
> running LCB-only programs.
>
>
> http://blog.peter-b.co.uk/2015/08/livecode-builder-without-livecod
I've been messing with 8 since whenever dp1 came out, but I still can't get
liveCodeBuilder.plist to work with textWrangler. Does anyone else have it
working?
I have it in ~/Library/Application Support/TextWrangler/Language Modules/
--
On the first day, God created the heavens and the Earth
On
Hi all,
I wrote a blog post with a brief introduction to writing, compiling and
running LCB-only programs.
http://blog.peter-b.co.uk/2015/08/livecode-builder-without-livecode-bit.html
If you write any little LCB-only programs, please let me know. I'd love
to see what people do with this cap
On 2015-08-30 10:43, AndyP wrote:
Script only looks interesting, and I'm wondering if this concept could
be
extended further?
If there was a mechanism to seamlessly switch between script only and
GUI
construction, so that one could build with the GUI and as one builds a
companion script only
Script only looks interesting, and I'm wondering if this concept could be
extended further?
If there was a mechanism to seamlessly switch between script only and GUI
construction, so that one could build with the GUI and as one builds a
companion script only representation of your build is created
Ah yeah I wasn't thinking it would even appear there.
Sent from my iPhone
> On 30 Aug 2015, at 6:38 pm, Ali Lloyd wrote:
>
> The only place I see it as higher risk than a command is in the property
> inspector. But perhaps making it not modifiable from the property inspector
> is enough insulat
The only place I see it as higher risk than a command is in the property
inspector. But perhaps making it not modifiable from the property inspector
is enough insulation.
On Sun, Aug 30, 2015 at 9:16 AM Monte Goulding
wrote:
> I guess so although that also has the same risk as a writable scriptO
I guess so although that also has the same risk as a writable scriptOnly
property so it seems to me we might as well run with the property and some
documented warnings about losing objects and custom properties when setting it
to true.
The other use case (which is similar) is someone transition
Ah yes, I see what you mean. It would be very handy for that case. Another
option would be a variant of the save command, like
save pStack as [(script only | binary) stack] pFilename
On Sun, 30 Aug 2015 at 00:28, Monte Goulding
wrote:
>
> > On 30 Aug 2015, at 8:24 am, Peter TB Brett
> wrote:
>
20 matches
Mail list logo
