Re: path of a 'closeStackRequest'

[Dave Cragg]

At 1:51 pm +0000 16/1/03, Graham Samuel wrote:

In the absence of a path-tracing feature in the debugger, I
therefore put this handler into my mainstack:

on closeStackRequest
  answer (the short name of the target)&&"is trying to close the Anchor stack"
  pass closeStackRequest
end closeStackRequest

and went back to testing. I found that when I closed a substack by
clicking on its close box, the handler in the mainstack got called,
with the target being the first card of the substack. There is no
stack script in the substack. What's going on? It looks as if the
'closeStackRequest' for the substack has got into the message path
for the mainstack and is being applied to the mainstack, but why? If
I want to allow closing of some substacks, either by scripting or by
my user without affecting the mainstack, what do I do?

Messages not handled in a substack will pass to the stack script of the mainstack. While it can be annoying when you forget about it, it allows you to put a lot of common application handlers in the mainstack script. So I think it counts as a useful feature.

Here are two possible ways to avoid unhandled messages getting passed to the mainstack.

1. In the stack script of the substack, include "empty" handlers for messages you don't want to pass or handle.

For example:

on closeStackRequest
end closeStackRequest

on closeStack
end closeStack

and so on

2. In the handler in the mainstack, check the target before handling the message. Something like:

on closeStackRequest
if not matchText(the long name of the owner of the target, "of stack.+of stack") then
##not from a substack so do stuff
end if
end closeStackRequest

The regular expression checks for "of stack" occurring more than once in the long name of the owner. This will only match if the target was in a substack.

Cheers
Dave

_______________________________________________
use-revolution mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution