• Open Menu Close Menu
  • Apple
  • Shopping Bag
  • Apple
  • Mac
  • iPad
  • iPhone
  • Watch
  • TV
  • Music
  • Support
  • Search apple.com
  • Shopping Bag
 

Lists

Open Menu Close Menu
  • Terms and Conditions
  • Lists hosted on this site
  • Email the Postmaster
  • Tips for posting to public mailing lists
Re: Admin: a suggestion on the script corruption problem.
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Admin: a suggestion on the script corruption problem.


  • Subject: Re: Admin: a suggestion on the script corruption problem.
  • From: Paul Berkowitz <email@hidden>
  • Date: Fri, 16 Feb 2001 19:57:37 -0800

On 2/16/01 1:41 PM, "Christopher Nebel" <email@hidden> wrote:

> I filed an enhancement request a month or two back for 7-bit clean
> AppleScript, i.e., nothing but pure ASCII. This whole list brouhaha was
> the main reason, but there are others -- e.g., Mac OS X is supposed to
> play nice in a multi-platform world, so relying on Mac encodings is not
> a good idea.
>
> Anyway, if you use the same "encoding" here on the list as I plan to use
> in AppleScript itself, then at some point in the future, you can throw
> away the encoder and go back to straight copy and paste. Here's the
> plan:
>
> There are only two places where AppleScript requires the use of
> Mac-specific characters: the raw code brackets and continuation
> characters. There are several others where AppleScript prefers to use
> Mac characters, but has a pure ASCII equivalent: not-equal, greater- (or
> less-) than-or-equal-to.
>
> My suggested equivalents for B, (continuation), B+ (left chevron), and B;
> (right chevron) are \, << , and >>. Currently, none of them can occur
> in AppleScript source outside of strings, so they won't introduce any
> ambiguity. For other Mac characters, use the ASCII versions, e.g. >=
> for b % (greater-than-or-equal-to).


Our savior! A REAL solution. (The actual message as transcribed emphasizes
again the need for a solution, since, unless you already know what Chris is
saying, it would make no sense).

Very simple indeed. Thank you! I guess this is too late for 1.6? Any guesses
as to how long it will be before this can take place? The first OSX major
update, perhaps? (OS X.I ?). And I suppose old scripts will still work when
it does change, in the 'on error/end try' OS 9 manner?

Thank you, Chris. We can hold out until then. Maybe a little "code
translator" for newbies can be supplied in the signature of the list:

"Change \ to option-L , << to option-\, and >> to shift-option-\ key
combinations when pasting scripts from this list into a script editor."

Thanks again for a great solution.

--
Paul Berkowitz


  • Follow-Ups:
    • Re: Admin: a suggestion on the script corruption problem.
      • From: "Serge Belleudy-d'Espinose" <email@hidden>
    • Re: Admin: a suggestion on the script corruption problem.
      • From: JollyRoger <email@hidden>
References: 
 >Re: Admin: a suggestion on the script corruption problem. (From: Christopher Nebel <email@hidden>)

  • Prev by Date: Re: AS Libraries for stay-open CGIs
  • Next by Date: Re: fileList of folder errors Help!
  • Previous by thread: Re: Admin: a suggestion on the script corruption problem.
  • Next by thread: Re: Admin: a suggestion on the script corruption problem.
  • Index(es):
    • Date
    • Thread