On 9/20/12 2:31 PM, Richmond wrote:
Would things not be easier to understand if each subsequent lockscreen
was signalled in some
sort of way so one can keep track of all the nested lockscreens
I think that would increase complexity and decrease functionality. As
Thierry pointed out, scripts would break if you use anyone else's
libraries. And there's not much advantage to tracking all that when the
engine does it for you anyway.
At present (as I'm sure 99% of the readers of this Use-List already
know) each lockscreen
is initiated like this:
set the lockscreen to true
and, as we have all recently become, almost painfully, aware, you can do
that as many times
as you like, but then have to do
set the lockscreen to false
just as many times to reverse the process
Not really. You don't have to track it at all. There are several ways to
handle it:
1. Just ignore it. When the handlers are done the screen will unlock
automatically.
2. If you always pair locks and unlocks in each handler, the situation
will never arise.
3. If you do feel that you simply must make sure the screen is unlocked,
the method is three lines of code:
repeat until the lockscreen is false
unlock screen
end repeat
But I can't remember ever needing to do that. Have you ever run up
against a problem with it?
--
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
