On 3/23/13 5:18 PM, Graham Samuel wrote:
I seem (almost) to have found a solution: I put a button in the
permanent stack (the one with the destruction handler in it) which
directly invokes this handler, so there is no involvement from the
stack that I want to delete. Bingo, it worked, but of course I (the
user) had to click the button, which would be no good in a real life
situation. So I put a line of script in the data stack that simply
clicks at the loc of this button. I'm reminded of those little
machines of my youth whose sole function was to turn themselves off
(a hand emerged from the interior and flicked the 'off' switch,
leaving enough time for the hand to go back inside before the motor
stopped - it appealed to a certain mindset).
This cannot be the approved way to do this, but it does look as if
it's working!
I think you could use "send" as you did before, but do it "in 0". If you
embed the send command inside another handler, that handler has to
finish after the send happens, so in essence there is still a handler
running. Try "send tCommand to whatever in 0" which will cause the
engine to execute the send command after the originating handler is done
running.
I think. I hope.
--
Jacqueline Landman Gay | [email protected]
HyperActive Software | http://www.hyperactivesw.com
_______________________________________________
use-livecode mailing list
[email protected]
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode
