Dar Scott wrote 02.12.20 01:18 AM$B!'(B
(B>>
(B>> All bg is unrelated, and control on card:
(B>> control --> card --> bg4 |
(B>> bg3 |
(B>> bg2 v
(B>> bg1 --> stack
(B>>
(B>> All bg is unrelated, and control is included in bg3:
(B>> bg4 ( no message )
(B>> control --> bg3 --> card --> stack
(B>> bg2 ( no message )
(B>> bg1 ( no message )
(B>
(B>I guess the idea is that if a control is in a group, even a background
(B>group, it is in the environment of that group or groups. But if the
(B>control is directly on the card it is in the environment of the card as
(B>modified by background groups.
(B>
(B>Even so, I am not able to rationalize why groups on the card or nested
(B>groups and controls within those do not have a message path like the
(B>first case.
(B
(B
(BAbout the first case, I think for compatibility with Hypercard.
(B
(BIF it is so,
(BRather the second case includes a problem. It is NOT right that a
(Bmessage of control in a background is carried to a card.
(B
(BBUT,
(BWe have to recognize this. A thing having both of perfect-logical and
(BHyperCard-compatibile is impossible.
(B
(B
(BUDI
([EMAIL PROTECTED]
(Bhttp://member.nifty.ne.jp/UDI/
(B_______________________________________________
(Buse-revolution mailing list
([EMAIL PROTECTED]
(Bhttp://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution
