Mark, Sadhunathan, I think we have a high/low confusion here. I think
you're both agreeing with Sarah.
FWIW, I tend to think in terms of 'behind/in front'.
Best,
Mark
On 6 Feb 2008, at 00:05, Mark Schonewille wrote:
Hi Sadhunathan Nadesan,
A lot of projects that are sent to me are unnecessarily complex
because people try to be "smart", putting handlers in weird places.
After 2 decades of programming with HyperCard and later Revolution,
I've come to the conclusion that it is a good idea to put handlers
as low as possible in the hierarchy. Only if a handler, or a part
of a handler, is used more than once, I put that handler higher up
the hierarchy. If I need only a part of a handler more than once, I
make a new handler with that particular part higher up the
hierarchy. If a handler is very short, I often put it in a button
or field itself, even if I need it more than once. In my view,
xTalk is not about programming "smart" but about programming
quickly and effectively (which is also smart, but different).
Therefore, I'd say Sarah is right.
Best regards,
Mark Schonewille
--
Economy-x-Talk Consulting and Software Engineering
http://economy-x-talk.com
http://www.salery.biz
Quickly extract data from your HyperCard stacks with DIFfersifier.
http://differsifier.economy-x-talk.com
Op 6-feb-2008, om 0:49 heeft Sadhunathan Nadesan het volgende
geschreven:
With true respect, I would like to suggest an alternative approach,
the reverse. Place handlers as high as posssible, such as in the
stack script.
_______________________________________________
use-revolution mailing list
[email protected]
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your
subscription preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution
_______________________________________________
use-revolution mailing list
[email protected]
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution
