Sannyasin Brahmanathaswami wrote > but the example was > > Parent X (a behavior for) > Child Y and Child X, > where Child X was also a behavior for > Child A
Hopefully that's a typo and not a circular reference. So A | B----C | D Is perfectly reasonable. B has access to A, C has access to A, D has access to C and A. But not B. To use a textbook example, if A=shape, B=circle, C=triangle, and D=right triangle you wouldn't expect (or want) a right triangle to inherit anything from circles, but any changes to triangle should be accessible from right triangles. You might want all circles to be blue and all triangles to be red. Those would be handlers in the B and C scripts. You could then have all right triangles be black (in the D script), and that wouldn't affect other types of triangles. ----- -- Mark Wieder ahsoftw...@gmail.com -- View this message in context: http://runtime-revolution.278305.n4.nabble.com/Why-Chained-Behaviors-May-Be-A-Bad-Idea-tp4708303p4708354.html Sent from the Revolution - User mailing list archive at Nabble.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