Geoff Canyon wrote:
On Thu, Aug 15, 2013 at 1:20 AM, Richard Gaskin wrote:
...
The tabStops issue is distinguished from those by one key principle:
Whether we prefer the behavior those examples exhibit or not, the behavior
is consistently applied, regardless of the values in the data being acted
on.
But with tabStops, the behavior differs with different data.
That's a big ouch, making it impossible to write a handler which can
reliably automate the setting of tabStops if the range of values is
sufficiently dynamic.
I don't know what you mean by , can you give me an example?
I provided one several posts ago yesterday:
<http://lists.runrev.com/pipermail/use-livecode/2013-August/191423.html>
I still don't understand why you use words like "crudely."
Apparently the keepers of the engine agree there's a better way to
handle relative column width specs, having taken the time to provide the
tabWidths property.
It's clear we both feel differently about this, and for backward
compatibility I'm inclined to agree that we should keep this token as is
unless we can find more than one person who's been adversely affected by it.
I just find it odd, as much as I find "destroyStack" and being able to
use property syntax for some functions but not others odd.
Ultimately Mark makes the final call on such things, and having already
provided an alternative to tabStops that's both more convenient and more
consistent, I'm disinclined to pursue this further.
Peace, my friend. In matters of taste there can be no dispute.
-
Richard Gaskin
Fourth World
LiveCode training and consulting: http://www.fourthworld.com
Webzine for LiveCode developers: http://www.LiveCodeJournal.com
Follow me on Twitter: http://twitter.com/FourthWorldSys
_______________________________________________
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
