Re: Best way to extend IDE (toolbar)?

[Richard Gaskin]

William Prothero wrote:

> Can script only stacks be used in iOS? I had some trouble getting it
> to recognize one. I entered it in the “Copy Files” preference, but
> the simulator didn’t seem to find it.

Hard to say.  What is the setup, and what indication did the simulator 
give to let you know it couldn't find it?


--
 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: Best way to extend IDE (toolbar)?

[William Prothero]

Richard:
Can script only stacks be used in iOS? I had some trouble getting it to 
recognize one. I entered it in the “Copy Files” preference, but the simulator 
didn’t seem to find it.
Bill

> On Sep 19, 2016, at 10:37 AM, Richard Gaskin  
> wrote:
> 
> Ben Rubinstein wrote:
> 
> > Do you (does anyone) know where script-only stacks are actually
> > documented? I can't find it in the User Guide - I see references
> > in the release notes to changes relating, I'm vaguely aware from
> > mailing lists of conversations about them; but I can't find anything
> > for a new person to discover that these exist,
> > how they are used, what are the constraints, etc.
> >
> > For example, do they really have the same suffix as traditional stack
> > files?
> > That seems pretty odd.
> 
> It's even more odd (or simple, depending on how one looks at it) than that:  
> LiveCode has always been able to open any valid stack file regardless of the 
> file name extension.
> 
> The benefit of using the established ".livecode" convention is that on 
> Windows and Mac it allows you to double-click the file to open it in the IDE 
> (Linux offers a mechanism for that too but it hasn't yet been implemented in 
> LC).  But you can use any file name extension you like with the "open" 
> command, or with the IDE's File->Open menu item.
> 
> Whether .livecode, .rev, .mc, .foo, .bar, or anything else (even 
> .anythingelse), they'll all work.
> 
> This is by design, allowing us to use stack files for documents if we want, 
> and of course we want our own documents to have their own file name extension.
> 
> As for script-only stacks, the conversation around them has been far more 
> complicated than the subject itself.
> 
> There is only one thing to know about script-only stacks:
> 
>  When saved to disk they contain only the stack script.
> 
> That's it.  And it's built into the name so we can remember it easily. :)
> 
> In all other respects a stack is a stack.  You can do anything with any stack 
> that you'd do with any other - adding objects, properties, whatever you like.
> 
> It's just that the file format of a script-only stack consists only of the 
> script, so nothing else will be saved with it.
> 
> There may be other places where this is outlined (such as the Release Notes 
> you mentioned), but if you search the Dictionary for scriptOnly you'll find 
> this note in the entry for that property:
> 
>A scriptOnly stack will save just the script with a single header
>line declaring the stack name. Any other objects or properties of
>the stack will not be written to disk.
> 
>The scriptOnly property has been added to enable scripts to detect
>and set the file format of the stack. Without this property it is
>not possible to detect the file format the stack is being saved in
>without examining the file itself.
> 
>Warning: scriptOnly stacks only save the stack name and script. Any
>property changes and objects created while the stack is open will
>not exist the next time the stack is opened.
> 
> -- 
> 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


___
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: Best way to extend IDE (toolbar)?

[Richard Gaskin]

Ben Rubinstein wrote:

> Do you (does anyone) know where script-only stacks are actually
> documented? I can't find it in the User Guide - I see references
> in the release notes to changes relating, I'm vaguely aware from
> mailing lists of conversations about them; but I can't find anything
> for a new person to discover that these exist,
> how they are used, what are the constraints, etc.
>
> For example, do they really have the same suffix as traditional stack
> files?
> That seems pretty odd.

It's even more odd (or simple, depending on how one looks at it) than 
that:  LiveCode has always been able to open any valid stack file 
regardless of the file name extension.


The benefit of using the established ".livecode" convention is that on 
Windows and Mac it allows you to double-click the file to open it in the 
IDE (Linux offers a mechanism for that too but it hasn't yet been 
implemented in LC).  But you can use any file name extension you like 
with the "open" command, or with the IDE's File->Open menu item.


Whether .livecode, .rev, .mc, .foo, .bar, or anything else (even 
.anythingelse), they'll all work.


This is by design, allowing us to use stack files for documents if we 
want, and of course we want our own documents to have their own file 
name extension.


As for script-only stacks, the conversation around them has been far 
more complicated than the subject itself.


There is only one thing to know about script-only stacks:

  When saved to disk they contain only the stack script.

That's it.  And it's built into the name so we can remember it easily. :)

In all other respects a stack is a stack.  You can do anything with any 
stack that you'd do with any other - adding objects, properties, 
whatever you like.


It's just that the file format of a script-only stack consists only of 
the script, so nothing else will be saved with it.


There may be other places where this is outlined (such as the Release 
Notes you mentioned), but if you search the Dictionary for scriptOnly 
you'll find this note in the entry for that property:


A scriptOnly stack will save just the script with a single header
line declaring the stack name. Any other objects or properties of
the stack will not be written to disk.

The scriptOnly property has been added to enable scripts to detect
and set the file format of the stack. Without this property it is
not possible to detect the file format the stack is being saved in
without examining the file itself.

Warning: scriptOnly stacks only save the stack name and script. Any
property changes and objects created while the stack is open will
not exist the next time the stack is opened.

--
 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: Best way to extend IDE (toolbar)?

[Mike Kerner]

Sorry!  .livecodescript is the suffix
I'm don't know where script-only stacks are documented, other than in
conversations, here, but there are plenty of them in the LC bundle.  For
example, look in Contents->Tools->Toolset->Libraries, or
Contents->Tools->Toolset->Palettes->Script Editor->Behaviors.  It just
looks like a regular LC script.
You could also build this as a widget in LC8.  The syntax for
liveCodeBuilder is a different, but I hear a vicious rumor that there is an
LCB class that is extensive, mostly done, has been tried out on a few
people, and is being actively tweaked to prepare it for release.
What I meant by an IDE Extension was a stack that you build in LC and stick
in My LiveCode->Extensions or My LiveCode->Plugins, and then tell LC to run
at startup in the Development->Plugins->Plugin settings menu

On Mon, Sep 12, 2016 at 8:41 AM, Ben Rubinstein  wrote:

> Hi Mike, thanks for responding.
>
> > Funny you should bring this up, as I spent most of yesterday in the
> script
> > editor, which is a bunch of script-only stacks (text files with LC script
> > in them with the ".livecode" suffix).
>
> Do you (does anyone) know where script-only stacks are actually
> documented? I can't find it in the User Guide - I see references in the
> release notes to changes relating, I'm vaguely aware from mailing lists of
> conversations about them; but I can't find anything for a new person to
> discover that these exist, how they are used, what are the constraints, etc.
>
> For example, do they really have the same suffix as traditional stack
> files? That seems pretty odd.
>
> > a) What are you adding, and would this be something that my long-standing
> > goal of hoarde-sourcing the IDE might want to add to the to-do list?
>
> My toolbar is a rag-bag of things I've found useful over the years; the
> most important is 'backup+save', which I've used since the pre-history of
> Revolution (before 1.0) when crashes were uncomfortably common. Also
> shortcut buttons to edit stack and card scripts, to open the Application
> Overview, to edit recent scripts (popup keeps track of five most recent),
> to paste object references into scripts (currently broken due to some bugs
> in LC8), to build a standalone with automatic versioning, to fish windows
> that have slipped under the toolbar back into the useable area, etc etc
> etc...
>
> Dunno about the horde-sourcing - it's a question of what's useful to who.
> Maybe if there was a convenient way to maintain a library of such things
> which could easily be selected from.
>
> > b) Instead of adding a palette, why not just expand the toolbar itself
> and
> > add to it?
>
> Because at any time I maintain lots of versions of LiveCode, and I prefer
> to keep the distribution 'clean'.
>
> > c) This sounds like it might be a good chance to build an IDE extension,
> > which can be fairly easy to do.
>
> Aha! So there is a thing called an "IDE extension"? That sounds like what
> I might be looking for. Where is this documented, how does it differ from
> plugins, widgets, libraries etc?
>
> TIA,
>
> Ben
>
>
> On 12/09/2016 13:27, Mike Kerner wrote:
>
>> Hey, Ben,
>> Funny you should bring this up, as I spent most of yesterday in the script
>> editor, which is a bunch of script-only stacks (text files with LC script
>> in them with the ".livecode" suffix).
>> a) What are you adding, and would this be something that my long-standing
>> goal of hoarde-sourcing the IDE might want to add to the to-do list?
>> b) Instead of adding a palette, why not just expand the toolbar itself and
>> add to it?
>> c) This sounds like it might be a good chance to build an IDE extension,
>> which can be fairly easy to do.
>> ___
>> 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
>



-- 
On the first day, God created the heavens and the Earth
On the second day, God created the oceans.
On the third day, God put the animals on hold for a few hours,
   and did a little diving.
And God said, "This is good."
___
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: Best way to extend IDE (toolbar)?

[Ben Rubinstein]

Hi Mike, thanks for responding.

> Funny you should bring this up, as I spent most of yesterday in the script
> editor, which is a bunch of script-only stacks (text files with LC script
> in them with the ".livecode" suffix).

Do you (does anyone) know where script-only stacks are actually documented? I 
can't find it in the User Guide - I see references in the release notes to 
changes relating, I'm vaguely aware from mailing lists of conversations about 
them; but I can't find anything for a new person to discover that these exist, 
how they are used, what are the constraints, etc.


For example, do they really have the same suffix as traditional stack files? 
That seems pretty odd.


> a) What are you adding, and would this be something that my long-standing
> goal of hoarde-sourcing the IDE might want to add to the to-do list?

My toolbar is a rag-bag of things I've found useful over the years; the most 
important is 'backup+save', which I've used since the pre-history of 
Revolution (before 1.0) when crashes were uncomfortably common. Also shortcut 
buttons to edit stack and card scripts, to open the Application Overview, to 
edit recent scripts (popup keeps track of five most recent), to paste object 
references into scripts (currently broken due to some bugs in LC8), to build a 
standalone with automatic versioning, to fish windows that have slipped under 
the toolbar back into the useable area, etc etc etc...


Dunno about the horde-sourcing - it's a question of what's useful to who. 
Maybe if there was a convenient way to maintain a library of such things which 
could easily be selected from.


> b) Instead of adding a palette, why not just expand the toolbar itself and
> add to it?

Because at any time I maintain lots of versions of LiveCode, and I prefer to 
keep the distribution 'clean'.


> c) This sounds like it might be a good chance to build an IDE extension,
> which can be fairly easy to do.

Aha! So there is a thing called an "IDE extension"? That sounds like what I 
might be looking for. Where is this documented, how does it differ from 
plugins, widgets, libraries etc?


TIA,

Ben

On 12/09/2016 13:27, Mike Kerner wrote:

Hey, Ben,
Funny you should bring this up, as I spent most of yesterday in the script
editor, which is a bunch of script-only stacks (text files with LC script
in them with the ".livecode" suffix).
a) What are you adding, and would this be something that my long-standing
goal of hoarde-sourcing the IDE might want to add to the to-do list?
b) Instead of adding a palette, why not just expand the toolbar itself and
add to it?
c) This sounds like it might be a good chance to build an IDE extension,
which can be fairly easy to do.
___
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: Best way to extend IDE (toolbar)?

[Mike Kerner]

Hey, Ben,
Funny you should bring this up, as I spent most of yesterday in the script
editor, which is a bunch of script-only stacks (text files with LC script
in them with the ".livecode" suffix).
a) What are you adding, and would this be something that my long-standing
goal of hoarde-sourcing the IDE might want to add to the to-do list?
b) Instead of adding a palette, why not just expand the toolbar itself and
add to it?
c) This sounds like it might be a good chance to build an IDE extension,
which can be fairly easy to do.
___
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