In version 2.2 using the Property Inspector if you select Stack File in the drop down and set a stack file the format of the "stackFiles" property will be what I listed in the previous email.
-==-=-=-=-=-=-==-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-==-=-=-=-=-=- Disclaimer: Any resemblance between the above views and those of my employer, my terminal, or the view out my window are purely coincidental. Any resemblance between the above and my own views is non-deterministic. The question of the existence of views in the absence of anyone to hold them is left as an exercise for the reader. The question of the existence of the reader is left as an exercise for the second god coefficient. (A discussion of non-orthogonal, non-integral polytheism is beyond the scope of this article.) --- On Fri 04/09, J. Landman Gay < [EMAIL PROTECTED] > wrote: From: J. Landman Gay [mailto: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Fri, 09 Apr 2004 11:41:25 -0500 Subject: Re: stackFiles BUG? On 4/9/04 7:49 AM, Kevin wrote:<br><br>> <br>> In the current release of Revolution one can set the "stackFiles" property via the Property Inspector the format of entries created is<br>> <br>> <short name>,<long name><return><br>> <br>> this is also true when it is accessed via transcript using <br>> <br>> "get the stackFiles of stack XXXX"<br>> <br>> However, when the stackFiles property is set via transcript one must specify using list format. The entries created are not listed in the property inspector. So any code accessing the stackFiles property must replace return with comma to get a consistant behavior.<br>> <br>> List format <long name>,<long name>,<long name> <br>> <br>> Is this a BUG? <br><br>I'm not sure what you are seeing. I just tried an experiment. I put this <br>into a field:<br><br>dict,components/help/revdictionary.rev<br>doc,components/help/revdocumentation.rev<br>enc,components/help/revencyclopedia.rev<br><br>Then from the message box:<br><br> set the stackfiles of this stack to fld 1<br><br>Then again from the message box:<br><br> answer the stackfiles of this stack<br><br>And what I got back was a return-delimited list exactly as it was in the <br>field. I could just as easily have constructed the original list in a <br>variable without using a field.<br><br>-- <br>Jacqueline Landman Gay | [EMAIL PROTECTED]<br>HyperActive Software | http://www.hyperactivesw.com<br>_______________________________________________<br>use-revolution mailing list<br>[EMAIL PROTECTED]<br>http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution<br> _______________________________________________ Join Excite! - http://www.excite.com The most personalized portal on the Web! _______________________________________________ use-revolution mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution
