On 14 February 2010 23:55, Scott Rossi <sc...@tactilemedia.com> wrote:
> The following works on my end and appears to operate counter to what you > say. > > - Create new stack "maintest". > > - Create substack of maintest named "subtest". > > - Create a button in stack subtest named "b1". Script: > on mouseUp > answer theMsg() > end mouseUp > > - Create another button in stack subtest named "b2". Script: > function theMsg > return "abc 123" > end theMsg > > - Go back to stack maintest. Set the behavior of the current card to long > id of btn b1; set the behavior of stack maintest itself to long id of btn > b2. > > Click the card in the main stack. You should see the "abc 123" message > above. Note the script will fail if you remove the behavior assigned to > the > main stack or the card in the main stack. > > If behaviors are indeed essentially object-level backscripts, then I think > it makes sense that object-level behaviors "fall through" to > card/stack-level behaviors -- this is consistent with card/stack scripts > handling any messages that go unhandled by objects. > I don't follow - the example is it not just what you would suspect - just like putting the scrpts in the card and stack script? I don't see what you mean by "fall through" card --> btn 1 of stack subtest ( = backscript of card) | v stack --> btn 2 of stack subtest ( = backscript of stack) _______________________________________________ use-revolution mailing list use-revolution@lists.runrev.com Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription preferences: http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution