On Oct 29, 2006, at 3:07 PM, Marielle Lange wrote:
Stack A
---------
on mouseup
send doSomething to stack "stackB"
wait 1 tick (in case of, I believe that's not needed but I tend
to add it)
put the handlername_result of stack "stackB" into tResult.
<--- reading the custom property of another object
end mouseup
Stack B
---------
on doSomething
-- do something
set the dosomething_result of me to the backgroundColor of this
stack
end doSomething
I think there is a shortcut. You can use 'the result' for other than
errors for custom commands.
Stack A
---------
on mouseup
send doSomething to stack "stackB"
put the result into tResult.
end mouseup
Stack B
---------
on doSomething
-- do something
return the backgroundColor of this stack
end doSomething
Another approach that makes sense for some kinds of functions is to
define a virtual property on stack B.
And--I have recently learned--one way to call a function in another
object is to temporarily move insert the object into the front
scripts. If there is not a problem with a name conflict this can
also go into the back scripts, or if it is a stack, into the library
scripts. On my computer (1.25GHz G4) it takes less than 25
microseconds to insert and remove an object, though I think stacks
take longer for some reason. I had been thinking of this in terms of
a small library with possible name clashes, but this would work for a
single function usage.
Stack A
---------
on mouseup
insert the script of stack "stackB" into front
put f(x,y,z) into tResult.
remove the script of stack "stackB" from front
end mouseup
Stack B
---------
function f x, y, z
-- do something
return "done", x, y, z, the backgroundColor of this stack
end f
The meaning is not exactly the same a similar method using send
because the message path is changed.
Dar
_______________________________________________
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
