Re: (Newbie Perspective)
Re: (Newbie Perspective)
- Subject: Re: (Newbie Perspective)
- From: Daniel Robinson <email@hidden>
- Date: Sun, 18 Feb 2001 19:16:30 -0500
hehehe
I thought I would be the only one irritated by this illustration of the "modern
'chat speak' method of writing"
Thank goodness I was not the only one!
To all who would use ChatSpeak:
ChatSpeak is like rap music.
Just because you can,
doesn't mean you should.
--Dan
------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>At 21:52 +1100 UTC, on 18/02/2001, Nicholas Deane-Johns wrote:
>
>
>
>> [...] (u'd laugh if u saw my scripting efforts,
>
>> [...] u lot seem 2 whip off scripts so easily).
>
>>
>
>> [...] u lot r all so apologetic [...]
>
>> [...] All of ur suggestions r great [...]
>
>> [...] Most newbie scripters r either desperate 4 an answer
>
>
>
>[...]
>
>
>
>> i hope i have expressed myself
>
>
>
>Definitely.
>
>
>
>> comprehensively (?)...
>
>
>
>Not really.
>
>
ROFL. It brought tears to my eyes knowing I wasn't the only one who found
>
that message a bit cryptic to read. I had to wonder if my coffee had been
>
switched to decaffeinated. Maybe I'm just one of those people who just
>
like to _read_ text email and not have to decipher as I go.
>
>
kat
>
>
--__--__--
>
>
Message: 2
>
Date: Sun, 18 Feb 2001 08:47:47 -0600
>
To: Applescript-Users <email@hidden>
>
From: Emmanuel <email@hidden>
>
Subject: Re: alias and memory leak
>
>
At 7:07 -0600 18/02/01, Victor Yee wrote:
>
>Is there any resource that has a list of these problems? Or is it
>
>something that one learns only through experience.
>
>
I'm afraid only very few people feel concerned about memory leaks - which
>
is easy to understand - so I'm afraid there is no specific resource on the
>
topic. Moreover, that would be a resource not easy to maintain, since new
>
versions ship frequently, and since not only AppleScript, but also Apple's
>
Scripting Additions, and Apple's Script Editor, are also involved.
>
>
Best regards,
>
Emmanuel
>
>
--__--__--
>
>
Message: 3
>
Date: Sun, 18 Feb 2001 11:10:11 -0800
>
To: AppleScript-Users Mail <email@hidden>
>
From: John W Baxter <email@hidden>
>
Subject: Re: AppleScript Endec (Encoder/Decoder) 1.0.2
>
>
At 5:44 -0500 2/18/01, Bill Cheeseman wrote:
>
>At the end of this message you will find the text of Wolf Rentzsch's script
>
>"AppleScript Endec 1.0.2". Copy it (including the opening "(*" comment
>
>delimiter), paste it into your script editor, compile and save.
>
>
Thank you!
>
>
Tested so far with itself, with the results compared using BBedit...no
>
problems (3 non-significant differences: 2 indentation and one being the
>
lack of a trailing return on the decoded script (or the presence of a
>
trailing return on the original as found in BBEdit).
>
>
Also tested on a little sample I've been playing with in another venue:
>
>
-- Encoded with AppleScript Endec 1.0.2
>
display dialog `C2
>
" g"
>
>
I see it only encodes the AppleScript-specific characters...I can live with
>
that (although the mpw-dev list can't). The string in that sample is
>
"option-z option-x option-c option-v"--as HTML entities:
>
Ω≈ç√
>
>
(HTML 4 and XHTML, that is...IE 4.5 doesn't like any of those except
>
ç .)
>
>
It decodes correctly.
>
>
--John
>
--
>
John Baxter email@hidden Port Ludlow, WA, USA
>
>
--__--__--
>
>
Message: 4
>
Date: Sun, 18 Feb 2001 14:26:18 -0500
>
Subject: Re: Hate to break in with
>
From: Peter Fine <email@hidden>
>
To: AppleScript-Users <email@hidden>
>
CC: <email@hidden>
>
>
on 2/18/01 9:40 AM, Robert Poland at email@hidden wrote:
>
>
> Hate to break in with a non- Convert Script question -
>
>
>
> Has anyone ever made a list of the Scripting additions (dictionaries)
>
> and where they can be found? Preferably in alphabetical order.
>
>
>
> I'm trying to find where I found Automate alerts.
>
>
"automate alerts after" is found in Akua Sweets.
>
>
I have a FileMaker 4 DB containing the dictionaries of all the osaxen I've
>
been able to get my hands on. It is searchable by command, among other
>
things. It's too big (2.5MB unstuffed) to email and I've been too busy to
>
figure out how to use my iDisc.
>
>
Peter
>
>
--__--__--
>
>
Message: 5
>
Date: Sun, 18 Feb 2001 20:45:13 +0100
>
Subject: Apple script and appearance
>
From: "Davide S. Kraehenbuehl" <email@hidden>
>
To: AppleScript-Users <email@hidden>
>
>
Hi,
>
>
I call this applescript from an application, it change the desktop picture
>
with MyImage
>
>
on run {MyImage}
>
>
copy MyImage as alias to filelist
>
>
tell application "Appearance"
>
set picture file of monitor 1 to filelist
>
set picture positioning of monitor 1 to centered
>
quit
>
end tell
>
>
end run
>
>
My question is how I can launch appearance in background (or invisible)?
>
It9s possible? I9m pretty new with applescript.
>
>
Thanks, Davide
>
>
--__--__--
>
>
Message: 6
>
Date: Sun, 18 Feb 2001 14:57:39 -0500
>
To: email@hidden
>
From: Deivy Petrescu <email@hidden>
>
Subject: May be HyperCard (was:Facespan 3.5.1: Is it good, or bad, for
>
you?).
>
>
cris <email@hidden> wrote
>
>
>on 18.02.2001 4:32 Uhr, Douglas Wagner at email@hidden wrote:
>
>
>
> > Hello:
>
> > I used Facespan 2.0 briefly some time ago and was disappointed. Now
>
> > I've started using Facespan 3.5 and almost at once, I've started
>
> > running into similar problems. During, what I consider fairly routine
>
> > work, I run into all sorts of odd behaviour.
>
>
>
>
>
>I hope the OS X version will be much better. And maybe it is possible at
>
>some day to use Apples Interface Builder with AppleScript.
>
>There is currently no alternative (except Dialog Director) to Facespan,
>
>which is generally bad in my opinion.
>
>
Just a suggestion. I've been fooling around with HyperTalk and
>
AppleScript and I am amazed at how easy it is to work with both in
>
HyperCard. It is very easy to pass values back and forth and with a
>
little imagination sky is the limit. On top of that, the power of
>
HyperTalk to understand clicks, cmd-clicks, etc., makes it very
>
easy to work with both languages to attain anything one wants.
>
As an extra bonus, one gets the flexibility of HyperTalk on many
>
items were Applescript is not as good. Dates for instance. Also
>
drawing, finding, working with some mathematical functions ( they are
>
native in HT), and making a GUI to run any script you choose.
>
Since Apple is pondering about stopping the development of HC, either
>
get your copy soon or ask Apple not to stop developing HC. It is
>
significantly cheaper than FaceSpan.
>
Oh! HC is better to control QT as well...
>
Just my two cents
>
>
Regards
>
>
Deivy Petrescu
>
http://www.dicas.com
>
Tips for your Mac.
>
Dicas para o seu Mac.
>
mailto:email@hidden
>
mailto:email@hidden
>
>
--__--__--
>
>
Message: 7
>
Date: Sun, 18 Feb 2001 15:02:12 -0500
>
From: Bryan <email@hidden>
>
Reply-To: email@hidden
>
Organization: Apex Radiology
>
To: email@hidden
>
Subject: Re: Hate to break in with
>
>
Hmmmm, the only Automate Alerts I know of is in Akua Sweets.
>
Did you get some of the commands unbundled from Akua?
>
If not, then I'd be interested in acquiring a copy as well.
>
>
Bryan Kaufman
>
>
Dale Saukerson wrote:
>
>
> At 9:40 AM -0500 2/18/01, Robert Poland wrote:
>
>
>
> >Has anyone ever made a list of the Scripting additions
>
> >(dictionaries) and where they can be found? Preferably in
>
> >alphabetical order.
>
> >
>
> >I'm trying to find where I found Automate alerts.
>
>
>
> The site I visit is:
>
> http://MacScripter.net/
>
>
>
> Their searchable page for oxen is:
>
> http://www.osaxen.com/
>
>
>
> Automate alerts is not listed there.
>
> --
>
> Dale Saukerson email@hidden
>
> Minnesota, USA.
>
> G4 Yikes PCI/400 mhz 256megs
>
> AppleScript neophyte
>
> _______________________________________________
>
> applescript-users mailing list
>
> email@hidden
>
> http://www.lists.apple.com/mailman/listinfo/applescript-users
>
>
--__--__--
>
>
Message: 8
>
Date: Sun, 18 Feb 2001 12:25:12 -0800
>
From: Chris Nebel <email@hidden>
>
Reply-To: email@hidden
>
Organization: Apple Computer, Inc.
>
To: Arthur J Knapp <email@hidden>
>
CC: email@hidden
>
Subject: Re: Admin: a suggestion on the script corruption problem.
>
>
Arthur J Knapp wrote:
>
>
> > Date: Fri, 16 Feb 2001 13:41:46 -0800
>
> > From: Christopher Nebel <email@hidden>
>
> > Subject: Re: Admin: a suggestion on the script corruption problem.
>
>
>
> > I filed an enhancement request a month or two back for 7-bit clean
>
> > AppleScript, i.e., nothing but pure ASCII.
>
>
>
> Chris, you have really made my day. :)
>
>
>
> > 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.
>
>
>
> Well, equivalents that are more or less useless, since the darn compiler
>
> forces them to be replaced by their high-bit synonym.
>
>
Well, that depends on what you need to do. I forgot to mention this
>
initially, but part of my scheme is to introduce an extra preference that
>
says, in essence, "decompile using straight ASCII." (I have yet to figure
>
out some way to express this that won't completely befuddle novices.)
>
>
If you're just copying scripts from the list, it wouldn't matter which way
>
you have the switch set, because the compiler will understand both the ASCII
>
and non-ASCII versions all the time. If you want to post scripts, though,
>
you'd turn the switch on, and your scripts would show up using only ASCII
>
characters. (Well, for language elements, at least. Inside strings and
>
comments, you're on your own.) This won't completely eliminate the list
>
problem, since the switch will probably default to off, and newbies probably
>
wouldn't know to turn it on, but it at least provides a quick and easy
>
solution.
>
>
My point above was that there are only two places where I'd have to introduce
>
entirely new tokens for existing things, because the others already have
>
plain ASCII versions, even if the decompiler always munges them. This is
>
good, because altering the syntax of a language can be, shall we say,
>
disruptive, so you want to keep changes as small as possible.
>
>
--Chris Nebel
>
AppleScript Engineering
>
>
--__--__--
>
>
Message: 9
>
Date: Sun, 18 Feb 2001 12:45:38 -0800
>
Subject: Re: Admin: a suggestion on the script corruption problem.
>
From: Paul Berkowitz <email@hidden>
>
To: Applescript-Users <email@hidden>
>
>
On 2/18/01 12:25 PM, "Chris Nebel" <email@hidden> wrote:
>
>
> My point above was that there are only two places where I'd have to introduce
>
> entirely new tokens for existing things, because the others already have
>
> plain ASCII versions, even if the decompiler always munges them. This is
>
> good, because altering the syntax of a language can be, shall we say,
>
> disruptive, so you want to keep changes as small as possible.
>
>
Chris,
>
>
It's wonderful that you're going to all this trouble. And, as you say, there
>
are so few non-ASCII-7 characters in AppleScript that it might be a very
>
good idea to replace them. However, I'm sure that they will still crop up
>
both from people who don't know, or forget about, the switch you envision,
>
and in strings, but probably not too often.
>
>
It still seems rather a drastic solution for a mailing list problem
>
although, of course, you did mention much more important reasons for wanting
>
to make the change.
>
>
I'm still puzzled as to why this is an evidently easier solution than simply
>
reconfiguring the server's software. I can send any ASCII-8 character
>
whatsoever - any character typed using the option key on a Mac keyboard - to
>
the Microsoft newsgroup servers, and it comes back exactly as I typed it. I
>
tried with all our "problem" characters here - every one - and then some,
>
and back they all came, perfectly correct. I can also read the same
>
characters typed using different key combinations by other people on Windows
>
computers sent to the same newsgroups, and they all arrive on my Mac email
>
program (Entourage) exactly as they were sent and intended. Oh well.
>
>
--
>
Paul Berkowitz
>
>
--__--__--
>
>
Message: 10
>
Date: Sun, 18 Feb 2001 12:45:28 -0800
>
Subject: Re: Admin: a suggestion on the script corruption problem.
>
From: Brad Giesbrecht <email@hidden>
>
To: <email@hidden>, AS list <email@hidden>
>
>
Hello,
>
>
For a short term solution:
>
>
Use a client-side send mail script that substitutes
>
"(alert: substitute option-return)" for the offending
>
character.
>
>
Then use a client-side receive mail script that
>
replaces the offending character for
>
"(alert: substitute option-return)".
>
>
Something like this maintains a great degree
>
of read if they do not use the decoding
>
script.
>
>
Cheers,
>
Bradley Giesbrecht
>
>
--__--__--
>
>
Message: 11
>
Date: Sun, 18 Feb 2001 12:45:24 -0800
>
To: AppleScript-Users Mail <email@hidden>
>
From: John W Baxter <email@hidden>
>
Subject: Re: AppleScript Endec (Encoder/Decoder) 1.0.2
>
>
At 11:10 -0800 2/18/01, John W Baxter wrote:
>
>Also tested on a little sample I've been playing with in another venue:
>
>
>
>-- Encoded with AppleScript Endec 1.0.2
>
>display dialog `C2
>
> " g"
>
>
>
>I see it only encodes the AppleScript-specific characters...I can live with
>
>that (although the mpw-dev list can't). The string in that sample is
>
>"option-z option-x option-c option-v"--as HTML entities:
>
> Ω≈ç√
>
>
>
>(HTML 4 and XHTML, that is...IE 4.5 doesn't like any of those except
>
>ç .)
>
>
>
>It decodes correctly.
>
>
I should have said: "It decodes correctly before being passed through the
>
list."
>
>
It won't do well at all after the Grand ASCIIfier's tender manipulations.
>
But few of us have a *need* to put odd characters like that into strings
>
(and we can use the ASCII numeric values if we do).
>
>
--John
>
--
>
John Baxter email@hidden Port Ludlow, WA, USA
>
>
--__--__--
>
>
Message: 12
>
From: email@hidden
>
Date: Sun, 18 Feb 2001 16:31:49 EST
>
Subject: Re: Re: Character mangling test
>
To: email@hidden, email@hidden
>
>
In a message dated 2/18/01 5:27:12 AM, Richard 23 wrote by first quoting me:
>
>
<snip> miserable failure <snip> mangled <snip> kludge <snip>
>
>
>I'd be happy to try out your solution...this one has been available for
>
>constructive review since before November 2000.
>
>
You misread my proposal BIG TIME. Read on...
>
>
>Clique-ish? Are you sure about this?
>
>
Just a thought, and on reflection a bad one, since this list is so welcoming
>
to start with.
>
>
>Mostly? What doesn't work?
>
>
The "mostly" means your script can't fix every problem, such as email clients
>
or mail relays that damage messages before or after passage thru Apple's
>
listserv, as happened to me with AOL.*
>
>
>Kludge? What do you call the current system? It's not possible to
>
>completely dekludge a kludge. I'm not too worried about it.
>
>
Touche4.
>
>
>If anyone wants to use it they can. If someone comes up with something
>
>simpler then I'm all for it.
>
>
>>And suggestions based on my original posting, in that order.
>
>>-----------------------------
>
>>[how to type original character on US keyboard / Geneva] (description)
>
>>what to type instead
>
>>-----------------------------
>
>>[option-,] (less than or equals)
>
>>" is less than or equal to "
>
>>-----------------------------
>
>
I think you misread this. I am NOT suggesting typing [option-,] or other such
>
horrible things. I am suggesting typing the wordy but pure 7-bit ASCII phrase
>
"is greater than or equal to." It will always work and no list server, mail
>
relay, or email client can mangle it.
>
>
You are apparently interpreting each second line between the ---- as comments
>
only. NO! Those are my suggested replacements/solutions, followed
>
occasionally by comments.
>
>
>>[option-.] (greater than or equals)
>
>>" is greater than or equal to "
>
>>-----------------------------
>
>>[option-return] (the line continuation character)
>
>>keep your lines short; I can live with ==>, but can newbies?
>
>>-----------------------------
>
>>[option-\] (a left chevron)
>
>><< hopefully, newbies will never need to contend with these
>
>>-----------------------------
>
>>.....
>
>Most of the characters you posted aren't really used in scripts
>
>except perhaps in quoted strings. I didn't even go there because
>
>quoted strings can contain anything and since many of the > 127
>
>characters map to alphanumerics already in use it's just not very
>
>practical to try and cover those...may as well binhex....
>
>
That's why I broke it up into common script characters and then a re-do of
>
all the characters I originally tested. Too anal of me? Don't answer that.
>
>
>I agree about the '==>' but nothing looks like the option-L character
>
>so I chose something that's visually suggestive (to me I guess).
>
>
My solution is short lines.
>
That solves email line wrap too.
>
>
>Using [option-L] is possible but replacing one character with many
>
>makes the line wrap problem more pronounced.
>
>
Again, I'm not suggestiing using [option-L]. Actually, that brings up another
>
question. I've always used [option-return] for line continuation. It seems
>
that you and others are typing [option-L] and then return. And to be even
>
pickier, it's actually [option-l] (lower case "L"); using a true [option-L]
>
gives you a capital O with a grave (downgoing) accent. But [option-l] looks
>
like [option-|] (vertical bar) or [option-I] (capital "i"), so there's no
>
good way even to type the keystrokes.
>
>
>The other characters I mapped, other than the chevrons which do turn
>
>up now and then, << and >> are more visually intuitive than + and ;
>
>and is less space consuming than the [option-x] equivalents. The
>
>wordier it gets and the more symbols one tries to handle, the more
>
>obfuscated it actually becomes and harder for a simple script to
>
>handle properly.
>
>
>
><<event sysobeep>>
>
>
>
>seems more readable than
>
>
>
>[option-\]event sysobeep[option-shift-\]
>
>
I agree.
>
As before, you misread.
>
Not suggesting that at all.
>
Yuk : P
>
>
>and is more likely to allow the original line to fit an email line.
>
>also with the others I address, the two character symbols below:
>
>
>
>less than or equal <=
>
>greater than or equal >=
>
>not equal /=
>
>
>
>all compile directly from email even without my tool.
>
>
True enough, but they don't then go back to email peacefully. I am suggesting
>
using the wordy but safe full text equivalents:
>
>
is less than or equal to
>
is greater than or equal to
>
is not equal to
>
>
>This means a
>
>preprocessed script will compile fine if it includes no chevrons
>
>and no continuation characters. And if someone really wants the
>
>english wordy variants there's a "Use English" setting described in
>
>my Read Me that tells how to decode to those forms by default.
>
>
Ah, I learned something. But posting the script with full English in the
>
first place prevents any problems anywhere down the line. Maybe your tool can
>
just do the conversion to wordy English as the default (the socially
>
responsibly thing to do; friends don't let friends post high-ASCII).
>
>
>The [option-,] [option-.] [option-=] are less intuitive, less readable,
>
>and may not even map properly for non-us keyboards. The
>
><=, >=, /= symbols are hardcoded into AppleScript an will compile
>
>regardless of localization AFAIK.
>
>
Ditto above. Not my suggestion.
>
>
<snip remainder, more of the same>
>
>
To summarize, this problem is 98% fixable by using short lines and wordy
>
English comparison operators. All that remains are the chevrons and omega
>
character, which only the geekiest among us really use (I include myself in
>
that group).
>
>
Jeff Baumann
>
email@hidden
>
www.linkedresources.com
>
>
11 Days, 2 Hour, 5 Minutes
>
How is it going to end?
>
>
* Why do I still use AOL?
>
10) Had it 6 years - people know the address.
>
9) Wife uses same account (different screen name).
>
8) Cable modem plus IPNetRouter plus "bring your own access" equals fast
>
connections/no dial-up hassles/full internet otherwise.
>
7) No one can mis-spell AOL.
>
6) I actually like the interface. OK, I'm just used to it. OK, they totally
>
butchered the GUI in version 4 and later (I still use 3.02a).
>
5) Inexpensive connectivity option while travelling.
>
4) Can access from other's systems as long as they have AOL.
>
3) I'm waiting for MacOS X and the built in email client.
>
2) I like instant messaging.
>
>
And the number one reason I still use AOL?
>
>
1) I'm a selectively lazy procrastinator.
>
>
--__--__--
>
>
_______________________________________________
>
applescript-users mailing list
>
email@hidden
>
http://www.lists.apple.com/mailman/listinfo/applescript-users
>
>
End of applescript-users Digest