Re: applescript-users digest, Vol 2 #746 - 9 msgs
Re: applescript-users digest, Vol 2 #746 - 9 msgs
- Subject: Re: applescript-users digest, Vol 2 #746 - 9 msgs
- From: Toño <email@hidden>
- Date: Sun, 10 Jun 2001 10:58:42 -0500
i can't use may old .ACGI's with Mac OS X Apache...
I need make some change? or what??
Greetings
------------------------------------------
Antonio Flores Aldama
www.MacVirtualToys.com
On domingo, junio 10, 2001, at 12:28 AM, applescript-users-
email@hidden wrote:
Send applescript-users mailing list submissions to
email@hidden
To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
http://www.lists.apple.com/mailman/listinfo/applescript-users
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
email@hidden
You can reach the person managing the list at
email@hidden
When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than "Re: Contents of applescript-users digest..."
Today's Topics:
1. Re: Scripting in OSX: Classic osaxen for Classic apps? (Ed
Stockly)
2. Re: Scripting in OSX: Classic osaxen for Classic apps? -
SOLUTION (Paul Berkowitz)
3. Finding invisible files and changing their properties (Paul
Fisher)
4. Re: Converting a nested list to return delimited string with
TIDs (Ricardo Montiel)
5. Re: Dialog Director complexities [WAS: Re: Newbie Question -
Hidden Password] (JollyRoger)
6. Re: Scripting in OSX: Classic osaxen for Classic apps?
(JollyRoger)
--__--__--
Message: 1
Date: Sat, 09 Jun 2001 18:06:56 -0700
Subject: Re: Scripting in OSX: Classic osaxen for Classic apps?
From: Ed Stockly <email@hidden>
To: <email@hidden>
Better than just carbonizing them, they should consider repackaging
them as
carbonized scriptable applications. Unless your scripting addition
syntax
would benefit users by being in the global namespace, there's little
reason
not to package it as a scriptable application.
Speaking for myself, I'm porting most of my scripting additions to
carbonized scriptable applications (some faceless, some not).
One of the coolest things about using certain Osax commands (display
dialog,
choose from list, choose file) is that they run without requiring the
frontmost application to change. This is a very good thing in cases
like
Photoshop or Quark which usually have a number of palletes open.
I have found it's less disruptive for users to be able to see a dialog
without the applications are partially going into the background.
Also, in
some cases a user may need visual cues from the pallets and windows in
order
to respond to the dialogs or what ever.
So, when migrating those Osax that involve user interaction I'm hoping
that
Osax developers will keep the current flexibility that's built into the
system.
ES
When on the net visit: <http://justapplescript.weblogs.com/>
--__--__--
Message: 2
Date: Sat, 09 Jun 2001 18:38:39 -0700
Subject: Re: Scripting in OSX: Classic osaxen for Classic apps? -
SOLUTION
From: Paul Berkowitz <email@hidden>
To: Applescript-Users <email@hidden>
On 6/9/01 3:23 AM, "Bill Cheeseman" <email@hidden> wrote:
on 6/9/01 4:43 AM, Paul Berkowitz at email@hidden wrote:
According to a page in the Help for OS X, you're supposed to be able
to
compile scripts in the OS X Script Editor which refer to classic
scripting
additions (for Classic or OS 8/9 use, of course) by enclosing the
osax terms
in a 'using terms from' construction, then wrapping that in a tell
block to
a classic app.
Except that 'using terms from' is meant to take an application
reference,
and osaxen are not applications (it won't compile if you try with
'application "osaxName" ').
I pointed this out in my report on AppleScript in Mac OS X. I have no
solution.
Bill Fancher sent me the solution. It works. You do the two steps one
at a
time. First you put the osax commands in a 'using terms from alias
pathName'
block (pathName being the path to the osax in the OS 9.1 Scripting
Additions
folder) and compile. That gives you the raw code in chevrons of the osax
command. Then you have to REMOVE the 'using terms from' block (to avoid
that
'scripting component error') and wrap the lines, plus any others
needed, in
a 'tell application "Classic App" ' block.
Hurray! Thanks, Bill. It will save lost of rebooting back and forth. And
there's no reason not to keep a growing script containing nothing but
lots
of these commands compiled within their own 'using terms from' block,
then
just copying and pasting the raw codes into other scripts as needed.
Someone
so inclined could even go through entire osax dictionaries this way.
--
Paul Berkowitz
--__--__--
Message: 3
Date: Sat, 09 Jun 2001 22:25:30 -0400
From: "Paul Fisher" <email@hidden>
To: <email@hidden>
Subject: Finding invisible files and changing their properties
Does anyone know why the folder "Temporary Items" doesn't even show up
as a selection in Resedit?
I am trying to make a couple of temporary filemaker pro files visible,
but i can't even find the folder they are in... i know it's there, I
can see it with the program "List Files"
Could some one, assist me in using applescript to make an invisible
file visible, Please!
many thanks in advance. :)
Paul Fisher
--__--__--
Message: 4
Date: Sun, 10 Jun 2001 00:17:24 -0300
Subject: Re: Converting a nested list to return delimited string with
TIDs
From: Ricardo Montiel <email@hidden>
To: <email@hidden>
CC: Ehsan Saffari <email@hidden>
on Sat, 9 Jun 2001 02:47:00 -0600, Ehsan Saffari at
email@hidden wrote:
Hi Ehsan,
That old trick, well done!
Yes, it's a useful trick (specially to that kind of issues that
AppleScript
states that there are impossible to perform.). Another possible use,
among
others, is to coerce a record to a string, and extract the record's
labels,
visualize a complex record or a list structure, etc. I do have already
some
code to extract the labels from a record, using ASTID and a repeat
loop, it
is very fast. I can send it to you if you want to take a look. Just
call.
There is only the minor point that each item
of each list ends up in quotes (error in my original post), but easily
fixed:
----- Begin Script ----------------------------------------
set x to {{"aa", "bb", "cc"}, {"dd", "ee", "ff"}}
try
x as date
on error message
set x to text 14 thru -16 of message
(*) First slice.
end try
set x to my cambiarTexto(x, "\", \"", return)
set x to my cambiarTexto(x, "\"}, {\"", return & return)
set x to text 2 thru -2 of x
Not that you are going to win a lot, but this second slice can be
included
in the first one (*), by moving inwards the text range; i.e:
set x to text 15 thru -17 of message
HTH
Saludos (Regards),
--Ricardo
--__--__--
Message: 5
Date: Sat, 09 Jun 2001 23:36:01 -0500
Subject: Re: Dialog Director complexities [WAS: Re: Newbie Question -
Hidden Password]
From: JollyRoger <email@hidden>
To: Applecript Users <email@hidden>
CC: Paul Berkowitz <email@hidden>
On 6/9/2001 5:05 PM, "Paul Berkowitz" <email@hidden> wrote:
On 6/9/01 1:51 PM, "JollyRoger" <email@hidden> wrote:
On 6/8/2001 10:52 PM, "Paul Berkowitz" <email@hidden> wrote:
I've been looking into DD recently and wonder if those with more
experience
can answer a few questions.
Hey Paul, small world :)
I've been using it for two years, so maybe I can help?
Thanks. I was hoping you'd reply, JR.
Yikes! That's a long one! I'll respond ASAP - but right now, I need
sleep!
;-)
JR
--__--__--
Message: 6
Date: Sat, 09 Jun 2001 23:43:37 -0500
Subject: Re: Scripting in OSX: Classic osaxen for Classic apps?
From: JollyRoger <email@hidden>
To: Applecript Users <email@hidden>
On 6/9/2001 8:06 PM, "Ed Stockly" <email@hidden> wrote:
So, when migrating those Osax that involve user interaction I'm hoping
that
Osax developers will keep the current flexibility that's built into the
system.
Tell blocks are not our enemies. ;-)
The shared namespace is both a flexibility and the cause of problems
that
have plagued script writers for years. The shared namespace is what
makes
terminology conflicts possible. John's commands is famous for this very
thing.
I agree that there are certain number of situations (not very many
though)
where terminology should reside in the global namespace. But the fact
is,
most scripting addition terminology is better off in a private
namespace.
For example, I bet you that 90% of Akua Sweets would be better off in a
scriptable application.
You can hope all you want; but most of my scripting additions are going
to
become scriptable applications.
JR
--__--__--
_______________________________________________
applescript-users mailing list
email@hidden
http://www.lists.apple.com/mailman/listinfo/applescript-users
End of applescript-users Digest