Re: Stack name conflicts resolved?

I made no reference to stack ID; I'm familiar with its role as a container for the ID incrementer. The short name of a stack is not the only distinguishing attribute. Its file path is also available. Indeed, topstack returns the path as a part of the stack reference, but apparently does

Re: Stack name conflicts resolved?

As he said, the stack ID is not really it's ID. In other words LC does not use the stack ID to identify it. Think of the stack ID as "the next ID to be assigned to a new object" much like SQL maintains a value in a master table of some sort with the next unique ID for each unique numerical

Re: Stack name conflicts resolved?

Monte Goulding wrote: > For most of the issues this thread is discussing though I actually > don’t think the main thing we need is UUIDs. We *think* we need UUIDs > only because we are used to thinking of object references as strings. > If we have an object reference (think `is strictly an

Re: Stack name conflicts resolved?

> On 8 Nov. 2016, at 6:24 am, Richard Gaskin wrote: > > > Using the long id to refer to stacks works (or at least should work) > > for all situations except for stacks that haven't yet been saved to > > disk. And for those stacks I would suggest storing the creation

Re: Stack name conflicts resolved?

mwieder wrote: > Using the long id to refer to stacks works (or at least should work) > for all situations except for stacks that haven't yet been saved to > disk. And for those stacks I would suggest storing the creation > timestamp as a custom property on creating a new stack so that they >

Re: Stack name conflicts resolved?

Richard's patch, but I'm looking forward to trying it out. - -- Mark Wieder ahsoftw...@gmail.com -- View this message in context: http://runtime-revolution.278305.n4.nabble.com/Stack-name-conflicts-resolved-tp4710098p4710173.html Sent from the Revolution - User mailing list archive at

Re: Stack name conflicts resolved?

Mark Waddingham wrote: > The engine has always been 'okay' (I believe) with substacks of the > same name when they are owned by *different* mainstacks - the only > rule you must follow in your code is that if you are referencing a > substack when the 'defaultStack' is not the main stack owning

Re: Stack name conflicts resolved?

On 2016-11-05 19:28, Richard Gaskin wrote: I've grown weary of stack name conflict over the years, and this morning decided to take some time to assess where we're really at with that and see if perhaps there's a way to handle things more liberally than how the IDE does now. That is, once we

Re: Stack name conflicts resolved?

Ben Rubinstein wrote: > No overtones intended by use of word "trying"! I should have said > "experimenting with" or similar... No offense taken, I just want to be sure that my glee for discovering the soundness and simplicity of the engine's handling of this does not mean I recommend relying

Re: Stack name conflicts resolved?

Hi Richard, No overtones intended by use of word "trying"! I should have said "experimenting with" or similar... I am interested though that you noted, if I understood correctly, that your experiment showed that having two substacks with the same name didn't cause an issue in the IDE when

Re: Stack name conflicts resolved?

Ben Rubinstein wrote: > Currently if I understand it correctly there are issues which seem > just too hard to fix: so instead > http://quality.livecode.com/show_bug.cgi?id=143 - the most egregious > of these issues - was 'fixed' by adding the check that Richard's > trying to remove. In all

Re: Stack name conflicts resolved?

On 06/11/2016 20:50, Monte Goulding wrote: On 7 Nov. 2016, at 3:57 am, Mark Wieder wrote: Now rename the second stack to "Untitled 1" The property inspector allows this, but now gets very confused. Ah… well that’s probably a bug. If the IDE can’t handle multiple

Re: Stack name conflicts resolved?

> On 7 Nov. 2016, at 3:57 am, Mark Wieder wrote: > > Now rename the second stack to "Untitled 1" > > The property inspector allows this, but now gets very confused. Ah… well that’s probably a bug. If the IDE can’t handle multiple stacks with the same name it should not

Re: Stack name conflicts resolved?

On 11/05/2016 09:38 PM, Monte Goulding wrote: On 6 Nov. 2016, at 1:31 pm, Mark Wieder wrote: When new stacks are created in memory they are assigned the id 1002. Why? If there's a stack already in memory why not create the new stack with the next sequential id? Then

Re: Stack name conflicts resolved?

> On 6 Nov. 2016, at 1:31 pm, Mark Wieder wrote: > > When new stacks are created in memory they are assigned the id 1002. > Why? > If there's a stack already in memory why not create the new stack with the > next sequential id? > Then the combination of id and filename

Re: Stack name conflicts resolved?

On 11/05/2016 03:02 PM, Monte Goulding wrote: On 6 Nov. 2016, at 5:28 am, Richard Gaskin wrote: That is, once we modify the IDE to allow it. ^ this is the issue. For the most part it isn’t the engine that has the issue with multiple stacks with the same name

Re: Stack name conflicts resolved?

I didn't say it couldn't be done. Possibly we would need versions of the mainstacks and openstacks that listed long IDs. Sent from my iPhone > On 6 Nov. 2016, at 9:08 am, Richard Gaskin wrote: > > I imagine for good reason, but I'm curious: where does topstack not

Re: Stack name conflicts resolved?

Monte Goulding wrote: >> On 6 Nov. 2016, at 5:28 am, Richard Gaskin wrote: >> >> That is, once we modify the IDE to allow it. > > ^ this is the issue. For the most part it isn’t the engine that has > the issue with multiple stacks with the same name open it’s the IDE. > There would be bucket

Re: Stack name conflicts resolved?

> On 6 Nov. 2016, at 5:28 am, Richard Gaskin wrote: > > That is, once we modify the IDE to allow it. ^ this is the issue. For the most part it isn’t the engine that has the issue with multiple stacks with the same name open it’s the IDE. There would be bucket

Re: Stack name conflicts resolved?

stephen barncard wrote: > On Sat, Nov 5, 2016 at 11:28 AM, Richard Gaskin wrote: > >> I've grown weary of stack name conflict over the years, and this >> morning decided to take some time to assess where we're really at >> with that and see if perhaps there's a way to handle things more >>

Re: Stack name conflicts resolved?

On Sat, Nov 5, 2016 at 11:28 AM, Richard Gaskin wrote: > I've grown weary of stack name conflict over the years, and this morning > decided to take some time to assess where we're really at with that and see > if perhaps there's a way to handle things more liberally

Stack name conflicts resolved?

I've grown weary of stack name conflict over the years, and this morning decided to take some time to assess where we're really at with that and see if perhaps there's a way to handle things more liberally than how the IDE does now. TL/DR version: It seems there's actually no real problem at