Re: parents ScriptEditor and Smile
Re: parents ScriptEditor and Smile
- Subject: Re: parents ScriptEditor and Smile
- From: "Serge Belleudy-d'Espinose" <email@hidden>
- Date: Thu, 15 Feb 2001 14:51:53 +0100
At 18:03 -0800 14/02/01, Patrick S. Page-McCaw wrote:
>
So, is there something about SMILE that has changed the behavior of load
>
script or inheritance ? or am I misunderstanding something fundamental?
>
The SMILE help suggests new ways of inheritance through windows? but I just
>
couldnt understand.
Ah ah, another victim! I usually don't send 'me too' mails, but this subject is the one I was fighting with in the 'Hierarchy of libs' thread only one or two weeks ago. So you know you're not alone, SMILE behaves the same for me.
>
A third issue: I want the scripts to be accessible to the users (I never
>
ever want to see them again, the scripts not the users) so I want the
>
scripts to be more easily compiled in the future. Is there an _easy_ way
>
of writing the 'load script file ... ' so that it is more transparent and
>
robust.
There's no easy and universal way to always find files back, but you can change the problem into placing your files inside folders that are the same on every computers. The solution that most people seem to naturally come to is place the libs inside the Scripts folder inside the system folder, and start 'child' scripts with:
propery parent: load script file ("" & (path to Scripts folder) & "myLib")
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
will work on any machine
Have your users always put the libs into the Scripts folder and they will never be lost.
Serge
__ __ __
_ \///\/ _ I N S T I T U T | Serge Belleudy-d'Espinose - IJM
\///\/// J A C Q U E S | 2 place Jussieu - 75251 Paris Cedex 05
_///\///\_ M O N O D | m@il : email@hidden
__/\///\__ Service Informatique | WWW :
http://www.ijm.jussieu.fr/