Thanks Robert,
I wasn't sure but that was what I was thinking. Your response
verifies that for me and I feel I can keep treating Pass the way I
normally do. I wanted to make sure I wasn't missing something crucial.
Thanks again,
Tom
On Mar 16, 2006, at 8:57 PM, Robert Brenstein wrote:
I am writing a lot of commands and functions for a library and was
wondering if the Pass handler name was a necessity? I mean, If I
am not using a handler name that is a part of transcript then do I
really want the handler to pass after running it? What would be a
reason I would.
The reason I ask is that when I insert a new command it throws in
a pass with that commands name by default. I don't normally use
the Pass except when using an On card or other transcript handler.
The script editor is just trying to be friendly and reduce the
amount of typing for you. Using pass is your call and depends on
what you want to achieve.
Normally, you would not pass your own handlers unless you do multi-
tiered processing; for example, card handler does card-specific
stuff and passes it further so background handler can do background-
specific stuff and/or stack can do stack-wide stuff. The situation
with standard messages is a tad different. Here, you would usually
pass the call unless you want to terminate processing; for example,
having openStack on card level without pass will prevent the
openStack handler in the stack script from executing.
Thomas J McGrath III
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Lazy River Software™ - http://www.lazyriversoftware.com
Lazy River Metal Art™ - http://www.lazyriversoftware.com/metal.html
Meeting Wear™ - http://www.cafepress.com/meetingwear
Semantic Compaction Systems - http://www.minspeak.com
SCIconics, LLC - http://www.sciconics.com/sciindex.html
_______________________________________________
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
