On Saturday, July 02, 2005, at 03:15PM, Matt Neuburg <email@hidden> wrote:
>Well, it seems to me that in your second formulation you stack the deck by
>making it seem like "call method" is somehow problematic. But why is it? If
>your method is a class method, then you can say:
>
> call method "doFoo" of class "UtilityClass"
>
>and *not* implement it with the application's delegate. And if (as your
>formulation above implies) it is an instance method, you can say
>
> call method "doFoo" of object someObject
>
>provided you can get a reference to an instance of this class into
>someObject - and you can, by setting things up in IB, just as any Cocoa
>programmer would have to do. So what's the point of introducing the sdef
>into the story? m.
I wasn't saying that call method was bad. Obviously in my example the call method does the same job. AppleScript puts complex operations into simple terms. I wanted to know if it was possible to do that for myself. If I plan to have my application respond to certain terms anyway, why wouldn't I want to be able to use those terms myself?
>PS You'll notice that I'm not answering the question. That's because I don't
>know the answer. You can easily add an sdef to a ASS app to add customized
>terminology to it, but I do not know whether you can use terms from that
>sdef from within a script *of* that application. Why not try it and see?
I mentioned that my question was theoretical, right? Well, that's mostly because I don't have a Tiger dev box available to me right now. :(
Topher
_______________________________________________
Do not post admin requests to the list. They will be ignored.
Applescript-studio mailing list (email@hidden)
Help/Unsubscribe/Update your Subscription:
http://lists.apple.com/mailman/options/applescript-studio/email@hidden
This email sent to email@hidden
