can I call subroutine of VB or C++ in our script
can I call subroutine of VB or C++ in our script
- Subject: can I call subroutine of VB or C++ in our script
- From: Rajeev Kumar <email@hidden>
- Date: Thu, 16 Sep 2004 05:02:17 +0100 (BST)
Hi Lists
Is there any options to call a form of VB through apple script. I want to display all the character which is inserted in a .QXD file through a user map form. I am compatible with VB and C++. Have any one such idea that how I can solve my problem.
Suppose I have to insert "greek character" how user know that it is a alpha I want show it's preview that how it look.
Please help me out.
Thanks and regards.
Rajeev
email@hidden wrote:
Send Applescript-users mailing list submissions to
email@hidden
To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
http://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: IS: Script Editor Styles Format Change Script -- WAS:
Re: String to list conversion (Shane Stanley)
2. Re: IS: Script Editor Styles Format Change Script -- WAS:
Re: String to list conversion (Johnny AppleScript)
3. Two digest #33's (Carl Anderson)
4. Re: IS: Script Editor Styles Form!
at Change
Script -- WAS:
Re: String to list conversion (Paul Berkowitz)
5. Re: IS: Script Editor Styles Format Change Script -- WAS:
Re: String to list conversion (Paul Berkowitz)
6. Re: IS: Script Editor Styles Format Change Script -- WAS:
Re: String to list conversion (Shane Stanley)
7. [OT] Avoiding Unnecessary Updates -- WAS: Re: IS: Script
Editor Styles Format Change Script -- WAS: Re: String to list
conversion (Johnny AppleScript)
8. Re: IS: Script Editor Styles Format Change Script -- WAS: Re:
String to list conversion (Michelle Steiner)
9. Re: [OT] Avoiding Unnecessary Updates -- WAS: Re: IS: Script
Editor Styles Format Change Script -- WAS: Re: String to list
conversion (John C. Welch)
10. Re: IS: Script Editor Styles Format Change Script -- WAS:
Re: String to list conversion (Paul Berkowitz)
11. Re: [OT] Avoiding Unnecessary Updates -- WAS: Re: IS: Script
Editor Styles Format Change Script -- WAS: Re: String to list
conv!
ersion
(Malcolm Fitzgerald)
12. Re: [OT] Avoiding Unnecessary Updates -- WAS: Re: IS: Script
Editor Styles Format Change Script -- WAS: Re: String to list
conversion (Johnny AppleScript)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Message: 1
Date: Wed, 15 Sep 2004 14:06:01 +1000
From: "Shane Stanley"
Subject: Re: IS: Script Editor Styles Format Change Script -- WAS:
Re: String to list conversion
To: AppleScript-Users
Message-ID: <email@hidden>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
On Tue, 14 Sep 2004 20:54:58 -0700, Paul Berkowitz wrote:
>Entourage since v10.1.4 sends size info in pixels rather than points. That's
>mostly so that email clients on Windows - where the resolution is 96 dpi
>rather than 72 as on the Mac - don't see the font as enormous.
Shouldn't that be the o!
ther way
around? X points should look the same on
either screen, but X pixels is always going to look smaller at 96dpi.
---
Shane Stanley
------------------------------
Message: 2
Date: Tue, 14 Sep 2004 22:08:27 -0600
From: Johnny AppleScript
Subject: Re: IS: Script Editor Styles Format Change Script -- WAS:
Re: String to list conversion
To: AppleScript Users
Message-ID:
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
On 04/09/14 9:54 PM, "Paul Berkowitz" wrote:
> Go to , and download and apply the Office
> 10.1.4 and 10.1.5 Updaters. That should help somewhat. To really get a grip
> on text sizes, you should upgrade to Office 2004, where you can set HTML
> pointy sizes precisely and get that size sent in e!
xact
pixels.
Thanks for the detailed explanation; it helps a lot to realize I'm not in
control and can't afford to be so. (:
I've heard numerous bad reports of problems with the updaters, and pretty
much everything seems to work here (except those things that don't and are
not advertised as fixed by the updaters), so as I'm a fan of IIIBDFI school
of thought, I'll continue where I am for now. As for v2004, unless the
powers that be find money for even the lower priced EDU version, I suspect
those of us not interested in fighting Entourage X any longer can move to
Mail at our discretion. Paying the ongoing MS tax has become a sore subject
around here.
Seriously, thanks for the information; it will likely prove useful in
future.
------------------------------
Message: 3
Date: Wed, 15 Sep 2004 00:10:14 -0400
From: Carl Anderson
Subject: Two digest #33's
To:
email@hidden
Message-ID: <email@hidden>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed
In the past I have written about not receiving a digest with some
number. Today I received two digests numbered 33 from AppleScript
Users. Does anyone know how?
Sincerely;
Carl Anderson
------------------------------
Message: 4
Date: Tue, 14 Sep 2004 21:16:15 -0700
From: Paul Berkowitz
Subject: Re: IS: Script Editor Styles Format Change Script -- WAS:
Re: String to list conversion
To: AppleScript-Users
Message-ID:
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
On 9/14/04 9:06 PM, "Shane Stanley" wrote:
> On Tue, 14 Sep 2004 20:54:58 -0700, Paul Berkowitz wrote:
>
>> Entourage since v10.1.4 send!
s size
info in pixels rather than points. That's
>> mostly so that email clients on Windows - where the resolution is 96 dpi
>> rather than 72 as on the Mac - don't see the font as enormous.
>
> Shouldn't that be the other way around? X points should look the same on
> either screen, but X pixels is always going to look smaller at 96dpi.
No. Pixels seem to be pixels (the same physical size) on all screens. Points
- which are already different sizes per font - are seen as larger on Windows
than on the Mac. On Windows, 10 pts is the standard font size, corresponding
to about the same size as 12 pts on the Mac. 12 pts looks enormous to them.
By the same token 10 pts - which they invariably send - looks tiny on the
Mac. (Surely you've received those tiny blue Arial 10 pt messages from
Outlook?) In Entourage 10.1.4 and later those get translated to the
equivalent pixels which turns out to be 12 or so in Entourage.
!
--
Paul Berkowitz
------------------------------
Message: 5
Date: Tue, 14 Sep 2004 21:23:00 -0700
From: Paul Berkowitz
Subject: Re: IS: Script Editor Styles Format Change Script -- WAS:
Re: String to list conversion
To: AppleScript-Users
Message-ID:
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
On 9/14/04 9:08 PM, "Johnny AppleScript" wrote:
> Thanks for the detailed explanation; it helps a lot to realize I'm not in
> control and can't afford to be so. (:
>
> I've heard numerous bad reports of problems with the updaters,
That's total nonsense. The 10.1.4 Updater fixed about 1000 bugs and
improvements in Office. Get it now. (So did 10.1.0 and 10.1.1: if you don't
believe in updates, why aren't you in 10.0.0?)
> and pretty
> much everything seems!
to work
here (except those things that don't and are
> not advertised as fixed by the updaters), so as I'm a fan of IIIBDFI school
> of thought, I'll continue where I am for now.
The most important thing is that - as with all previous updaters - the
database and database rebuild engine are more robust in each update. It's
frankly - pardon me - stupid not to take advantage of that. You may be very
sorry one day.
> As for v2004, unless the
> powers that be find money for even the lower priced EDU version, I suspect
> those of us not interested in fighting Entourage X any longer can move to
> Mail at our discretion. Paying the ongoing MS tax has become a sore subject
> around here.
Why do you call it a "tax"? You don't have to upgrade if you don't want to.
What kind of perverse philosophy says that 3 years of work at making anew
version with tons of new features shouldn't cost an upgrade price? Microsoft
is !
no
different form any other software company - everyone charges upgrade
fees for major version upgrades. And so they should. In the meantime, you
can update to v10.1.4 for FREE.
>
> Seriously, thanks for the information; it will likely prove useful in
> future.
OK. The future is NOW, mind you.
--
Paul Berkowitz
------------------------------
Message: 6
Date: Wed, 15 Sep 2004 14:24:48 +1000
From: "Shane Stanley"
Subject: Re: IS: Script Editor Styles Format Change Script -- WAS:
Re: String to list conversion
To: AppleScript-Users
Message-ID: <email@hidden>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
On Tue, 14 Sep 2004 21:16:15 -0700, Paul Berkowitz wrote:
>No. Pixels seem to be pixels (the same physical size) on all screens. Points
>- which are already different sizes per f!
ont - are
seen as larger on Windows
>than on the Mac. On Windows, 10 pts is the standard font size, corresponding
>to about the same size as 12 pts on the Mac. 12 pts looks enormous to them.
>By the same token 10 pts - which they invariably send - looks tiny on the
>Mac.
I'll believe that's what happens, but the whole idea of a "point" is that
it's a more-or-less fixed physical size, and the platforms should fiddle
the number of pixels involved to make it so (within the vagaries of
physical resolution variations).
>(Surely you've received those tiny blue Arial 10 pt messages from
>Outlook?) In Entourage 10.1.4 and later those get translated to the
>equivalent pixels which turns out to be 12 or so in Entourage.
No, I use PowerMail.
---
Shane Stanley
------------------------------
Message: 7
Date: Tue, 14 Sep 2004 23:27:23 -0600
From: Johnny Apple!
Script
Subject: [OT] Avoiding Unnecessary Updates -- WAS: Re: IS: Script
Editor Styles Format Change Script -- WAS: Re: String to list
conversion
To: AppleScript Users
Message-ID:
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
On 04/09/14 10:23 PM, "Paul Berkowitz" wrote:
> On 9/14/04 9:08 PM, "Johnny AppleScript" wrote:
>
>> Thanks for the detailed explanation; it helps a lot to realize I'm not in
>> control and can't afford to be so. (:
>>
>> I've heard numerous bad reports of problems with the updaters,
>
> That's total nonsense. The 10.1.4 Updater fixed about 1000 bugs and
> improvements in Office.
Well, you're certainly entitled to your opinion based on your own
experience, but around here and elsewhere people lost lots!
of time
and data
to botched MSO updater applications. A general note went out warning us to
avoid the patches unless specific issues were being experienced that were
named as fixed by the updaters. And then, possibly due to our custom
installations outside the Applications folder, or large databases, or
multiple users, or whatever, specific steps for backups in case of problems
need to be taken, and it all is just a bit much when you're not getting paid
enough to get done all the work you don't have time for in the first place.
Again, it may seem nonsense to you, but I suspect you don't support hundreds
of users, and hundreds of machines, either.
> Get it now. (So did 10.1.0 and 10.1.1: if you don't
> believe in updates, why aren't you in 10.0.0?)
The first update addressed a specific problem I was having; the later
updates address no problems I am aware of having. Simple, yes? If I ever see
an update that addresses a prob!
lem I
need fixed, I'll take the required
steps to apply it. I don't consider a few pixels or points for a limited
purpose I'll rarely use to be worth the effort just now.
> The most important thing is that - as with all previous updaters - the
> database and database rebuild engine are more robust in each update. It's
> frankly - pardon me - stupid not to take advantage of that. You may be very
> sorry one day.
Possibly. But the DB is backed up to server every night, then optical media
and tape at least weekly, and all email is stored on the server for at least
3, if not 30 days. If my DB rebuild ever fails, I can pull yesterday's copy
off the server and resync with one download. I may be stupid, but I'm not
foolish. I think the only thing I might end up being sorry for is starting
this debate with someone so rabidly enamored of MS. ;-)
> Why do you call it a "tax"? You don't have to upgrade if you don't want to.>
What kind of perverse philosophy says that 3 years of work at making anew
> version with tons of new features shouldn't cost an upgrade price? Microsoft
> is no different form any other software company - everyone charges upgrade
> fees for major version upgrades. And so they should. In the meantime, you
> can update to v10.1.4 for FREE.
Ah, if only the FREE updaters would fix outstanding problems that most
people would define as bugs, but you apologists describe as features worthy
of another couple hundred bucks times hundreds of users at a site like this.
When MS starts fixing things in versions that could be purchased new within
the last three to six months to a year or so before the latest and greatest
feature bloat, such as fixing the show-stopping, app-crashing Junk Mail
Filter bug, we'll stop calling it a tax. When someone is sold on a product
based on extensive touting of a particular feature, and that feature
is
broken, to the point of being effectively unusable, and not fixed until the
next paid upgrade, that's called a tax. It's unfair, and it doesn't fly
around here.
Such broken tools that force you to change the way you use the application
(we have to turn JMF off when we go home or hundreds of other automations
will fail if the app isn't able to even run) are not to be confused with
recognizably new features that improve ways of doing things; things, if they
appear to offer value to us, we are happy to pay for. But to force us to pay
money to fix a problem that you created in the first version, and have a
reasonable responsibility to take care of within a certain time period (we
purchased a number of copies of Office X in December 2003 and January 2004,
most of which did not qualify for any consideration for free upgrades, yet
all were purchased after the JMF bug was identified), all because your fix
just happens to include 150!
new
features we have no use or need for, that,
again, is a tax.
And don't blame the JMF bug on the spammers; they're not the only source of
such deadly emails we've received; and no mail app should fatally crash with
no clue as to source or how to fix it just because of a malformed header.
Could they have predicted it? Probably not, but they have been aware of it
for long enough that they should have fixed it before or around the time the
new version came out. Their apparent unwillingness to do so is the straw
that broke the camel's back here. We're not even a blip on their financial
radar, but I know we're not the only ones who are currently restricting
purchases because of it; I wonder how many dollars they lost in new sales
versus the cost to issue a fix for it. Probably not enough to change their
minds, but the issue is still the same; sometimes the right business
decision is one that costs you more than it earns you in the short t!
erm,
but
in the long term pays off in spades.
> OK. The future is NOW, mind you.
It may very well be; it just may not be with MS. At least with Mail and iCal
and Address Book, the bug-fix tax is limited to one vendor, a vendor we have
to go with anyway. And I see Apple delivering far more "free" updates and
paid feature upgrades than MS is, and on a much larger scale.
Don't get me wrong, I love MS Entourage; I like Word, for what it is, but
can do OK for my purposes with any number of other apps; I love Excel, but
doubt I'll see a new version that offers some feature I just *have* to have;
I use PP occasionally, but it's really only because I already paid the tax.
I'll probably use Entourage until I see just enough in the Apple offerings
to make changing reasonably painless. Even then I will probably miss it. But
if MS were ever to Do The Right Thing, and at least fix the JMF bug for X, I
might reconsider paying for the ne!
xt
upgrade and keep the love affair going
on my own, in spite of what management thinks about it.
Cheers -- JA
------------------------------
Message: 8
Date: Tue, 14 Sep 2004 22:45:40 -0700
From: Michelle Steiner
Subject: Re: IS: Script Editor Styles Format Change Script -- WAS: Re:
String to list conversion
To: Johnny AppleScript
Cc: AppleScript Users
Message-ID: <email@hidden>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed
On Sep 14, 2004, at 7:17 PM, Johnny AppleScript wrote:
> Here's a question: I was quite surprised to learn Paul B. uses the
> default
> formatting styles; is he the only one? I thought everyone hated the
> defaults
> and changed them within minutes of trying to script seriously. Seems
> like
> just abo!
ut every
AS book or primer article I've read suggests this in
> the
> first few paragraphs or chapters.
New text (uncompiled) Monaco 10, Regular, black
Operators Geneva 10, Regular, red
Language keywords Helvetica 10, Bold, black
Application keywords Geneva 10, regular, purple
Comments Geneva 9, regular, black
Values Geneva 10, regular, green
variables and subroutine names Geneva 10, regular, blue
References Geneva 10, regular, violet
-- Michelle
--
"There's some good in the world, Mr. Frodo, and it's worth fighting
for."
------------------------------
Message: 9
Date: Wed, 15 Sep 2004 00:52:38 -0500
From: "John C. Welch"
Subject: Re: [OT] Avoiding Unnecessary Updates -- WAS: Re: IS: Script
Editor Styles Format Change Script -- WAS: Re: String to list
conversion
To: "AppleScript User's List"
Message-ID:
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
On 9/15/04 12:27 AM, "Johnny AppleScript" wrote:
> Well, you're certainly entitled to your opinion based on your own
> experience, but around here and elsewhere people lost lots of time and data
> to botched MSO updater applications. A general note went out warning us to
> avoid the patches unless specific issues were being experienced that were
> named as fixed by the updaters. And then, possibly due to our custom
> installations outside the Applications folder, or large databases, or
> multiple users, or whatever, specific steps for backups in case of problems
> need to be taken, and it all is just a bit much when you're not getting paid
> enough to get done all the work you don't have time for in the first place.
>
> Again, it may seem nonsense to you, but I suspect you don't support
hundreds
> of users, and hundreds of machines, either.
I have, and on clean systems, had zero problems with any of the updates
through 10.1.4
>
>> Get it now. (So did 10.1.0 and 10.1.1: if you don't
>> believe in updates, why aren't you in 10.0.0?)
>
> The first update addressed a specific problem I was having; the later
> updates address no problems I am aware of having. Simple, yes? If I ever see
> an update that addresses a problem I need fixed, I'll take the required
> steps to apply it. I don't consider a few pixels or points for a limited
> purpose I'll rarely use to be worth the effort just now.
So you only apply updates to anything when they fix a specific problem
you're having? Does that include the OS too?
>
>> The most important thing is that - as with all previous updaters - the
>> database and database rebuild engine are more robust in each u!
pdate.
It's
>> frankly - pardon me - stupid not to take advantage of that. You may be very
>> sorry one day.
>
> Possibly. But the DB is backed up to server every night, then optical media
=== message truncated ===
Yahoo! India Matrimony: Find your life partner
online.
_______________________________________________
Do not post admin requests to the list. They will be ignored.
Applescript-users mailing list (email@hidden)
Help/Unsubscribe/Update your Subscription:
This email sent to email@hidden