Yes, Cubist pointed this out too, and I've been mulling it over, and
of course you're right. There's a logical "this" group, field, etc.,
when one is selected, clicked . . . But fleeting states aren't a good
lexical basis for programming languages . . . "Dynamic" is good, but.
Charles
On Aug 5, 2005, at 7:53 PM, Jeanne A. E. DeVoto wrote:
At 11:20 AM -0400 8/5/2005, Charles Hartman wrote:
Well, I don't know. Now that it's pointed out to me, I see in the
Doc under 'this' only mentions of 'this card' and 'this
stack' . . . It seems a little counterintuitive, though, doesn't
it? to have an apparent "plain English" command with what feels
like an arbitrary limitation on its reference? Why shouldn't "this
X" refer to whichever X is the "current" one of its kind (group,
button, script . . .)?
Well, the current stack is the one that's open and frontmost, and
the current card is the one that's visible. But there's not really
an analog for a group, button, etc., because you can have more than
one of those available in the current context - you might have
several groups on the current card, for instance, and no one of
them is "current" in the same way.
--
jeanne a. e. devoto ~ [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.jaedworks.com
_______________________________________________
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
_______________________________________________
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
