Oops, didn't see the Q part of the message! Yes, your assumption is correct.
On Fri, 28 Aug 2015 at 22:29, Ali Lloyd <ali.ll...@livecode.com> wrote: > Originally we had the check to prevent us making typos and such. As I have > previously said, it is exactly designed to be extensible. Once 8.0 reaches > GM, you can rely on that handler being a no-op. > > If you have any suggestions about improvements to the system it would be > good to hear them. I think at the moment there is a slight lack of > flexibility in terms of the info that can be returned along with the > message. > > On Fri, 28 Aug 2015 at 18:04, Mark <mwie...@ahsoftware.net> wrote: > >> The new LC8 IDE implements the publish-and-subscribe pattern, >> but it looks like it isn't designed to be extensible. It's extensible >> right now because revIDEMessageIsValid() always returns true. >> >> Q: assuming that the validity check was an interim test to make sure >> the IDE didn't fall on its face, can we rely on this mechanism as a way >> to register callback events in the IDE, and thus extend and modify >> the IDE? >> >> -- >> Mark Wieder >> ahsoftw...@gmail.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
