Re: Intel CPU for Android Devices

[Todd Fabacher via use-livecode]

Thanks Ralph...I will test.

--Todd

On Sat, Mar 31, 2018 at 4:19 PM, Ralph DiMola 
wrote:

> I have an old Samsung Galaxy Tab 3 10.1 the has an Intel Atom processor and
> it runs LC 8.1.9/9.0(rc)1 apps.  The apps are a bit slow but do run(I
> wonder
> if there's emulating going on?). I have not installed from the store. I
> side-load using adb. Is the app visible on the PlayStore to the devices? If
> so does it download/install? If it installs does it even start running?
>
> Ralph DiMola
> IT Director
> Evergreen Information Services
> rdim...@evergreeninfo.net
>
> -Original Message-
> From: use-livecode [mailto:use-livecode-boun...@lists.runrev.com] On
> Behalf
> Of Todd Fabacher via use-livecode
> Sent: Saturday, March 31, 2018 10:35 AM
> To: Use-livecode Use-livecode
> Cc: Todd Fabacher
> Subject: Intel CPU for Android Devices
>
> I am running into a problem where the Android device uses Intel CPU and NOT
> Arm. It does not rum from the store on the device. Has anyone installed and
> run a LiveCode Android App on an Intel device.
>
> I have an 11am meeting on Monday, so any answer on the holiday weekend
> would
> be much appreciated.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Todd
> ___
> use-livecode mailing list
> use-livecode@lists.runrev.com
> Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your
> subscription
> preferences:
> http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode
>
>
___
use-livecode mailing list
use-livecode@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode

Re: do. command. safety. ?

[Richard Gaskin via use-livecode]

Jacque wrote:
> could you provide an example where the embedded command would actually
> execute?

A variant of Mark's example which executes when passed to fooEvil but 
not when pass to fooGood:


on mouseUp
   put "into x "&";answer GOTCHA & word 1 of the params #" \
   into tUserInput
   fooGood tUserInput
   fooEvil tUserInput
end mouseUp

on fooGood pUserInput
   do "put pUserInput into x"
end fooGood

on fooEvil pUserInput
   do "put " & pUserInput &" into x"
end fooEvil


--
 Richard Gaskin
 Fourth World Systems
 Software Design and Development for the Desktop, Mobile, and the Web
 
 ambassa...@fourthworld.comhttp://www.FourthWorld.com

___
use-livecode mailing list
use-livecode@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode

Re: Multiple Windows

[Richard Gaskin via use-livecode]

Richmond Mathewson wrote:

> I know the idea of being able to display different cards from one
> stack in different windows is something that has exercised many
> people for a long time.
>
> I had a fantasy that ran like this:
>
> [pseudoCode]
>
> show card 6 of stack "Stack1" in stack "subStack1"
>
> How daft is that?

No more daft than Gain Momentum, a powerful xTalk I worked with back in 
the day that had an object type called Viewers that did exactly what you 
describe.


https://quality.livecode.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2786

--
 Richard Gaskin
 Fourth World Systems
 Software Design and Development for the Desktop, Mobile, and the Web
 
 ambassa...@fourthworld.comhttp://www.FourthWorld.com

___
use-livecode mailing list
use-livecode@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode

Re: do. command. safety. ?

[Alex Tweedly via use-livecode]

The question is exactly what did you type into the field ? It's unclear 
whether the quotes in your email are part of the email, or part of the 
field content.


Here's a case that definitely shows the difference:

button "Button"

on mouseup
  localtVar, tX
  do"put "&& quote& thetextoffld1& quote&& "into tx"
  put"now tx="&& tX 
end mouseup

and button "safe"

on mouseup
  localtVar, tX
  putfld1intotVar
  do"put tVar into tX"
  put"now tx="&& tX 
end mouseup

and into the field I typed

1+2+3" into tt;set the backcolor of btn 1 to blue;put "


Clicking button 'safe' gives

now tx= 1+2+3" into tt;set the backcolor of btn 1 to blue;put "

after the msg box; and repeated clicks there produce extra lines all the 
same.


Clicking button 'button' gives

now tx=

in the msgbox, and the button color changes.

So the embedded command within the field is being executed.

-- Alex.



On 31/03/2018 20:03, J. Landman Gay via use-livecode wrote:
At the risk of appearing to be obtuse...I tried both versions of the 
"do" and got the same results. In each case, the variable was 
populated but no code was executed. In a test stack with one field and 
one button, I entered ";set the backcolor of btn 1 to blue;put ". In 
the button script I tried both versions of your example (substituting 
"fld 1" for "user input".) I also tried it without the semicolons and 
extra "put " at the end.


In each case the variable x contained "set the backcolor of btn 1 to 
blue" and the button did not change color.


I am quite sure you are right, but could you provide an example where 
the embedded command would actually execute?


On 3/30/18 7:06 PM, Mark Waddingham via use-livecode wrote:
The user input was indirected through a variable in the safe version 
- not made part of the do string... That's the critical difference.


The unsafe version allows user input to change the do'd code, the 
safe version only changes the content of a variable the do string uses.


Warmest Regards,

Mark.

Sent from my iPhone

On 30 Mar 2018, at 19:24, J. Landman Gay via use-livecode 
 wrote:


Well yes, but as Bob mentioned, wouldn't a variable do the same thing?

  put ";delete hard drive;put " into x
  do x

vs:

  do "put " && quote & ";delete hard drive;put " & quote && "into x"

This actually came up way back in MetaCard where it was pointed out 
that the engine was about as secure as it gets as long as you 
validate all user input when using "do" or (I think) "value". In the 
first example above, input needs to be examined before the "do" 
command is issued. So I think there's a line or two missing in there 
somewhere. ;)




On 3/30/18 12:15 PM, Mark Waddingham via use-livecode wrote:
Think about the string that can be constructed in the quoted 
version - user input could be "; ...;put " where ... is any code 
you would like...

Sent from my iPhone
On 30 Mar 2018, at 18:09, J. Landman Gay via use-livecode 
 wrote:


These look the same to me. Both versions place content into a 
variable. Is the difference because of how the engine evaluates 
the input somehow?


--
Jacqueline Landman Gay | jac...@hyperactivesw.com
HyperActive Software | http://www.hyperactivesw.com
On March 30, 2018 11:04:54 AM Mark Waddingham via use-livecode 
 wrote:


Using do safely is the same as making database queries safe, or 
URL requests.


You 'just' need to make sure that any input from outside is 
sanitized to ensure that it doesn't change the meaning of the 
expression you are 'doing'.


For example, don't interpolate strings directly in the script 
using quotes, use a local var instead:


put user input into tVar1
do "put tVar1 into x" -- safe

Rather than

do "put " && quote & user input & quote && "into x" -- not safe

Warmest Regards,

Mark.

Sent from my iPhone

On 30 Mar 2018, at 16:43, Tom Glod via use-livecode 
 wrote:


Dear Geniuses

Sometimes late at night just before falling asleep I think 
about the

dangers of the do command.  Is it possible to inject code into this
mechanism through malware?

I do not have enough understanding of operating systems and 
their processes
...and the livecode engineto be able to know if its a 
reasonable

question or not.

Thanks for any input on this.
___



--
Jacqueline Landman Gay | jac...@hyperactivesw.com
HyperActive Software   | http://www.hyperactivesw.com

___
use-livecode mailing list
use-livecode@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your 
subscription preferences:

http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode



___
use-livecode mailing list
use-livecode@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your 
subscription preferences:

RE: Browser Widget Document Download

[Ralph DiMola via use-livecode]

Hey BR,

The link is going to a content management system(Adobe I think)
http://www.gasb.org/cs/ContentServer?c=Document_C=1176169676825=
ame=GASB%2FDocument_C%2FDocumentPage

The file name is buried in the html but not the path. It's in an iFrame but
it gets rendered by some unknown SW on iOS. On Android it just start
silently start downloading while displaying a white page. What I would like
to do is control where the PDF is being downloaded to and force a download
on iOS. I'm guessing(with great disappointment) that this would require a
change to the browser widget.

Thanks...

Ralph DiMola
IT Director
Evergreen Information Services
rdim...@evergreeninfo.net


-Original Message-
From: use-livecode [mailto:use-livecode-boun...@lists.runrev.com] On Behalf
Of Sannyasin Brahmanathaswami via use-livecode
Sent: Saturday, March 31, 2018 1:00 PM
To: Ralph DiMola via use-livecode
Cc: Sannyasin Brahmanathaswami
Subject: Re: Browser Widget Document Download

When I set the widget to the url the PDF displays.
When I put the url into a var  "put url (tURL) into MyVar" I see some
html/javascript in MyVar but no PDF. What I would like to do is download the
PDF on both mobile platforms. Is this even possible with LC?

BR: can you send the URL?

Typically, (probably you know this already, but FWIW) this shows a PDF in a
iFrame, some javascript "widget"  .

If you how source in the browser, (with PDF open) can you can find a
"direct" url for the PDF?


___
use-livecode mailing list
use-livecode@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode


___
use-livecode mailing list
use-livecode@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode

RE: Intel CPU for Android Devices

[Ralph DiMola via use-livecode]

I have an old Samsung Galaxy Tab 3 10.1 the has an Intel Atom processor and
it runs LC 8.1.9/9.0(rc)1 apps.  The apps are a bit slow but do run(I wonder
if there's emulating going on?). I have not installed from the store. I
side-load using adb. Is the app visible on the PlayStore to the devices? If
so does it download/install? If it installs does it even start running?

Ralph DiMola
IT Director
Evergreen Information Services
rdim...@evergreeninfo.net

-Original Message-
From: use-livecode [mailto:use-livecode-boun...@lists.runrev.com] On Behalf
Of Todd Fabacher via use-livecode
Sent: Saturday, March 31, 2018 10:35 AM
To: Use-livecode Use-livecode
Cc: Todd Fabacher
Subject: Intel CPU for Android Devices

I am running into a problem where the Android device uses Intel CPU and NOT
Arm. It does not rum from the store on the device. Has anyone installed and
run a LiveCode Android App on an Intel device.

I have an 11am meeting on Monday, so any answer on the holiday weekend would
be much appreciated.

Thanks,

Todd
___
use-livecode mailing list
use-livecode@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode


___
use-livecode mailing list
use-livecode@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode

Re: do. command. safety. ?

[Dr. Hawkins via use-livecode]

On Fri, Mar 30, 2018 at 9:02 AM, Mark Waddingham via use-livecode <
use-livecode@lists.runrev.com> wrote:

>
> do "put " && quote & user input & quote && "into x" -- not safe
>


Thus,
   do "initiate global thermonuclear war"


:)

Was shazam the statistical package that actually implemented that (only
partially, we hoped!)


-- 
Dr. Richard E. Hawkins, Esq.
(702) 508-8462
___
use-livecode mailing list
use-livecode@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode

Re: do. command. safety. ?

[J. Landman Gay via use-livecode]

BTW, I know this works and is dangerous: do 

It's the insertions that don't seem to be affected.

On 3/31/18 2:03 PM, J. Landman Gay via use-livecode wrote:
At the risk of appearing to be obtuse...I tried both versions of the 
"do" and got the same results. In each case, the variable was populated 
but no code was executed. In a test stack with one field and one button, 
I entered ";set the backcolor of btn 1 to blue;put ". In the button 
script I tried both versions of your example (substituting "fld 1" for 
"user input".) I also tried it without the semicolons and extra "put " 
at the end.


In each case the variable x contained "set the backcolor of btn 1 to 
blue" and the button did not change color.


I am quite sure you are right, but could you provide an example where 
the embedded command would actually execute?


On 3/30/18 7:06 PM, Mark Waddingham via use-livecode wrote:
The user input was indirected through a variable in the safe version - 
not made part of the do string... That's the critical difference.


The unsafe version allows user input to change the do'd code, the safe 
version only changes the content of a variable the do string uses.


Warmest Regards,

Mark.

Sent from my iPhone

On 30 Mar 2018, at 19:24, J. Landman Gay via use-livecode 
 wrote:


Well yes, but as Bob mentioned, wouldn't a variable do the same thing?

  put ";delete hard drive;put " into x
  do x

vs:

  do "put " && quote & ";delete hard drive;put " & quote && "into x"

This actually came up way back in MetaCard where it was pointed out 
that the engine was about as secure as it gets as long as you 
validate all user input when using "do" or (I think) "value". In the 
first example above, input needs to be examined before the "do" 
command is issued. So I think there's a line or two missing in there 
somewhere. ;)




On 3/30/18 12:15 PM, Mark Waddingham via use-livecode wrote:
Think about the string that can be constructed in the quoted version 
- user input could be "; ...;put " where ... is any code you would 
like...

Sent from my iPhone
On 30 Mar 2018, at 18:09, J. Landman Gay via use-livecode 
 wrote:


These look the same to me. Both versions place content into a 
variable. Is the difference because of how the engine evaluates the 
input somehow?


--
Jacqueline Landman Gay | jac...@hyperactivesw.com
HyperActive Software | http://www.hyperactivesw.com
On March 30, 2018 11:04:54 AM Mark Waddingham via use-livecode 
 wrote:


Using do safely is the same as making database queries safe, or 
URL requests.


You 'just' need to make sure that any input from outside is 
sanitized to ensure that it doesn't change the meaning of the 
expression you are 'doing'.


For example, don't interpolate strings directly in the script 
using quotes, use a local var instead:


put user input into tVar1
do "put tVar1 into x" -- safe

Rather than

do "put " && quote & user input & quote && "into x" -- not safe

Warmest Regards,

Mark.

Sent from my iPhone

On 30 Mar 2018, at 16:43, Tom Glod via use-livecode 
 wrote:


Dear Geniuses

Sometimes late at night just before falling asleep I think 
about the

dangers of the do command.  Is it possible to inject code into this
mechanism through malware?

I do not have enough understanding of operating systems and their 
processes

...and the livecode engineto be able to know if its a reasonable
question or not.

Thanks for any input on this.
___



--
Jacqueline Landman Gay | jac...@hyperactivesw.com
HyperActive Software   | http://www.hyperactivesw.com

___
use-livecode mailing list
use-livecode@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your 
subscription preferences:

http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode



___
use-livecode mailing list
use-livecode@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your 
subscription preferences:

http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode







--
Jacqueline Landman Gay | jac...@hyperactivesw.com
HyperActive Software   | http://www.hyperactivesw.com


___
use-livecode mailing list
use-livecode@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode

Re: do. command. safety. ?

[J. Landman Gay via use-livecode]

At the risk of appearing to be obtuse...I tried both versions of the 
"do" and got the same results. In each case, the variable was populated 
but no code was executed. In a test stack with one field and one button, 
I entered ";set the backcolor of btn 1 to blue;put ". In the button 
script I tried both versions of your example (substituting "fld 1" for 
"user input".) I also tried it without the semicolons and extra "put " 
at the end.


In each case the variable x contained "set the backcolor of btn 1 to 
blue" and the button did not change color.


I am quite sure you are right, but could you provide an example where 
the embedded command would actually execute?


On 3/30/18 7:06 PM, Mark Waddingham via use-livecode wrote:

The user input was indirected through a variable in the safe version - not made 
part of the do string... That's the critical difference.

The unsafe version allows user input to change the do'd code, the safe version 
only changes the content of a variable the do string uses.

Warmest Regards,

Mark.

Sent from my iPhone


On 30 Mar 2018, at 19:24, J. Landman Gay via use-livecode 
 wrote:

Well yes, but as Bob mentioned, wouldn't a variable do the same thing?

  put ";delete hard drive;put " into x
  do x

vs:

  do "put " && quote & ";delete hard drive;put " & quote && "into x"

This actually came up way back in MetaCard where it was pointed out that the engine was about as secure as it 
gets as long as you validate all user input when using "do" or (I think) "value". In the 
first example above, input needs to be examined before the "do" command is issued. So I think 
there's a line or two missing in there somewhere. ;)



On 3/30/18 12:15 PM, Mark Waddingham via use-livecode wrote:
Think about the string that can be constructed in the quoted version - user input could 
be "; ...;put " where ... is any code you would like...
Sent from my iPhone

On 30 Mar 2018, at 18:09, J. Landman Gay via use-livecode 
 wrote:

These look the same to me. Both versions place content into a variable. Is the 
difference because of how the engine evaluates the input somehow?

--
Jacqueline Landman Gay | jac...@hyperactivesw.com
HyperActive Software | http://www.hyperactivesw.com

On March 30, 2018 11:04:54 AM Mark Waddingham via use-livecode 
 wrote:

Using do safely is the same as making database queries safe, or URL requests.

You 'just' need to make sure that any input from outside is sanitized to ensure 
that it doesn't change the meaning of the expression you are 'doing'.

For example, don't interpolate strings directly in the script using quotes, use 
a local var instead:

put user input into tVar1
do "put tVar1 into x" -- safe

Rather than

do "put " && quote & user input & quote && "into x" -- not safe

Warmest Regards,

Mark.

Sent from my iPhone


On 30 Mar 2018, at 16:43, Tom Glod via use-livecode 
 wrote:

Dear Geniuses

Sometimes late at night just before falling asleep I think about the
dangers of the do command.  Is it possible to inject code into this
mechanism through malware?

I do not have enough understanding of operating systems and their processes
...and the livecode engineto be able to know if its a reasonable
question or not.

Thanks for any input on this.
___



--
Jacqueline Landman Gay | jac...@hyperactivesw.com
HyperActive Software   | http://www.hyperactivesw.com

___
use-livecode mailing list
use-livecode@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode



___
use-livecode mailing list
use-livecode@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode




--
Jacqueline Landman Gay | jac...@hyperactivesw.com
HyperActive Software   | http://www.hyperactivesw.com

___
use-livecode mailing list
use-livecode@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode

Re: Browser Widget Document Download

[Sannyasin Brahmanathaswami via use-livecode]

When I set the widget to the url the PDF displays.
When I put the url into a var  "put url (tURL) into MyVar" I see some
html/javascript in MyVar but no PDF. What I would like to do is download the
PDF on both mobile platforms. Is this even possible with LC?

BR: can you send the URL?

Typically, (probably you know this already, but FWIW) this shows a PDF in a 
iFrame, some javascript "widget"  .

If you how source in the browser, (with PDF open) can you can find a "direct" 
url for the PDF?


___
use-livecode mailing list
use-livecode@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode

Re: Intel CPU for Android Devices

[J. Landman Gay via use-livecode]

I don't have a solution, but the Play Store lets you set incompatible 
versions or devices. Those won't show up in searches, or if the user gets 
there some other way there's a banner saying the app is incompatible with 
the device.


--
Jacqueline Landman Gay | jac...@hyperactivesw.com
HyperActive Software | http://www.hyperactivesw.com
On March 31, 2018 9:36:37 AM Todd Fabacher via use-livecode 
 wrote:



I am running into a problem where the Android device uses Intel CPU and NOT
Arm. It does not rum from the store on the device. Has anyone installed and
run a LiveCode Android App on an Intel device.

I have an 11am meeting on Monday, so any answer on the holiday weekend
would be much appreciated.

Thanks,

Todd
___
use-livecode mailing list
use-livecode@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your 
subscription preferences:

http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode





___
use-livecode mailing list
use-livecode@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode

Re: Multiple Windows

[dunbarx via use-livecode]

Richmond.

I saw your construction of two stacks displayed in a "frame", so it appeared
that two cards were simultaneously present in a single "stack".

I see what you are after; the goal being be able to navigate in each card
separately.

Why only two?

Anyway, I have never needed such a feature, but certainly see that others
might. I often open substacks (or other stacks) on screen, generally for a
particular purpose ancillary to the working stack, and close them when done.
They are in that case just a high-powered dialog box, used basically in the
same way.

I remember when HC allowed up to 16 open stacks, as opposed to just one. A
major enhancement.

A multi-visible-card stack would be useful for multimedia displays, and
likely for other purposes. It sounds like a major effort, though, addressing
the foundations of the program itself. 

Can't wait to see what comes back...

Craig 



--
Sent from: 
http://runtime-revolution.278305.n4.nabble.com/Revolution-User-f278306.html

___
use-livecode mailing list
use-livecode@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode

Intel CPU for Android Devices

[Todd Fabacher via use-livecode]

I am running into a problem where the Android device uses Intel CPU and NOT
Arm. It does not rum from the store on the device. Has anyone installed and
run a LiveCode Android App on an Intel device.

I have an 11am meeting on Monday, so any answer on the holiday weekend
would be much appreciated.

Thanks,

Todd
___
use-livecode mailing list
use-livecode@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode

Re: variable xref

[Rick Harrison via use-livecode]

Whenever you deprecate code you may be destroying
someone’s life’s coding work.  There should always be
at least a rock solid migration utility offered that will
make any such deprecations completely smooth,
and painless for anyone who has to make the changes.

Just my 2 cents for the day. ;-)

Rick

> On Mar 30, 2018, at 1:53 PM, Mikey via use-livecode 
>  wrote:
> 
> Deprecating “features” is often the right thing to do because it cleans up 
> kluges that are no long necessary, and clarity and simplicity and order are 
> restored.  Yes, that means that some code will be affected and have to be 
> reworked.

___
use-livecode mailing list
use-livecode@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode

Multiple Windows

[Richmond Mathewson via use-livecode]

I know the idea of being able to display different cards from one stack 
in different windows is something

that has exercised many people for a long time.

I had a fantasy that ran like this:

[pseudoCode]

show card 6 of stack "Stack1" in stack "subStack1"

How daft is that?

Richmond.
___
use-livecode mailing list
use-livecode@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode