Re: Applescript-users Digest, Vol 2, Issue 635
Re: Applescript-users Digest, Vol 2, Issue 635
- Subject: Re: Applescript-users Digest, Vol 2, Issue 635
- From: # sid # <email@hidden>
- Date: Thu, 29 Sep 2005 16:32:47 +0200
hi guys! i wanna reset my cable modem via applescript and i don't know ,how can i do it ???
thnx
sid
2005/9/29, email@hidden <email@hidden
>: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. displaying dictionaries [was: Re: Identify conflicts! Re:
AppleScript a miserable and utter failure] (has)
2. Re: Identify conflicts! Re: AppleScript a miserable and utter
failure (has)
3. Re: multiple text delimiters (has)
4. Re: Excel can't close? (Shane Stanley)
5. Re: multiple text delimiters (Gary (Lists))
6. Re: AppleScript a miserable and utter failure (Mark J. Reed)
7. Re: AppleScript a miserable and utter failure (Shane Stanley)
8. Re: AppleScript a miserable and utter failure (John C. Welch)
9. Re: AppleScript a miserable and utter failure (Bill Cheeseman)
10. Re: Excel can't close? (Dave Balderstone)
11. Re: Records (Nigel Garvey)
12. modularizing code [was: Re: AppleScript a miserable and utter
failure] (has)
13. code reuse [was: Re: AppleScript a miserable and utter
failure] (has)
14. Re: AppleScript a miserable and utter failure (has)
15. 'inconsistency' [was: Re: AppleScript a miserable and utter
failure] (has)
16. Re: code reuse [was: Re: AppleScript a miserable and utter
failure] (John C. Welch)
17. Re: 'inconsistency' [was: Re: AppleScript a miserable and
utter failure] (John C. Welch)
18. subfolder in entourage (Giampiero Cairo)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Message: 1
Date: Wed, 28 Sep 2005 23:50:38 +0100
From: has <email@hidden>
Subject: displaying dictionaries [was: Re: Identify conflicts! Re:
AppleScript a miserable and utter failure]
To: email@hidden
Message-ID: <a05200f0dbf60ce57b9d3@[82.27.255.83
]>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Doug McNutt wrote:
>Actually,
I find the osascript tool in BBEdit worksheets is a better way to do
AppleScripts in OS neXt but I still need Script Editor to display
dictionaries.
>
>What other free or open-source tool is available for that?
http://freespace.virgin.net/hamish.sanderson/htmldictionary.html
HTH
has
--
http://freespace.virgin.net/hamish.sanderson/
------------------------------
Message: 2
Date: Wed, 28 Sep 2005 23:57:13 +0100
From: has <email@hidden>
Subject: Re: Identify conflicts! Re: AppleScript a miserable and utter
failure
To:
email@hidden
Message-ID: <a05200f0cbf60c34a22c0@[82.27.255.83]>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Don Briggs wrote:
>>My take on the fuss is simply that there needs to be a language czar who ensures that terminology conflicts are fixed.
>I nominate Script Editor as the authority charged with identifying such terminology conflicts.
>To me, it seems reasonable to expect Script Editor to warn us of conflicts, especially at "Compile" time.
>Am I wrong?
Yup.
SE plays no part in script compilation. Compiler warnings would need to
be emitted by the AppleScript component. Apple would probably need to
extend the OSA API to support this, and OSA editors could then adopt
this as they wanted.
Alternatively, if someone really wanted,
they could write a tool that inventorizes all installed osaxen on a
user's system, and checks for potential conflicts between those and
selected applications. Wouldn't be that hard (most of the code you'd
need I've already written and released as open source).
has
--
http://freespace.virgin.net/hamish.sanderson/
------------------------------
Message: 3
Date: Thu, 29 Sep 2005 00:09:13 +0100
From: has <email@hidden>
Subject: Re: multiple text delimiters
To:
email@hidden
Message-ID: <a05200f0ebf60d17574cc@[82.27.255.83]>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Gary (Lists) wrote:
>And how [Text Commands] shows up in Smile's list of installed Scripting Additions is a
>wonderful mystery
Assuming
you've installed it in a standard ScriptingAdditions folder, you can
thank Smile for that: it helpfully lists all osaxen and applications
installed in those locations under Open Dictionary > Scripting
Additions. Which seems sensible, given that Apple like to store
scriptable FBAs (which generally fulfill the same role as osaxen) in
those locations themselves.
has
--
http://freespace.virgin.net/hamish.sanderson/
------------------------------
Message: 4
Date: Thu, 29 Sep 2005 09:39:20 +1000
From: Shane Stanley <email@hidden>
Subject: Re: Excel can't close?
To: AS users lists <email@hidden
>
Message-ID: <BF6166C8.21D0A%email@hidden>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
On 29/9/05 2:15 AM, "Dave Balderstone" <
email@hidden>
wrote:
> Tiger 10.4.2, Excel 11.2 (050714). This script fails...
>
> tell application "Microsoft Excel"
> close document 1 saving no
> end tell
>
> --> Microsoft Excel got an error: document 1 doesn't understand the
> close message.
Try:
close workbook 1 saving no
--
Shane Stanley <email@hidden>
------------------------------
Message: 5
Date: Wed, 28 Sep 2005 19:42:50 -0400
From: "Gary (Lists)" <
email@hidden>
Subject: Re: multiple text delimiters
To: AppleScript Users <email@hidden
>
Message-ID: <BF60A2BA.67C0%email@hidden>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
"has" wrote:
> Gary (Lists) wrote:
>
>> And how [Text Commands] shows up in Smile's list of installed Scripting
>> Additions is a
>> wonderful mystery
>
> Assuming you've installed it in a standard ScriptingAdditions folder, you can
> thank Smile for that
Thanks, has.
Thanks, Smile.
--
Gary
Take your Turing parsing those two English-like statements, which may one
day confuse a future English-like humanoid reader who is reviewing our
Historical Documents from a far-distant English-like planet.
They may think I stole those accolades from an English-like post-modern poet
(which to them, of course, would mean the pre-extra-colonial-galactic-urban
era.)
------------------------------
Message: 6
Date: Wed, 28 Sep 2005 19:43:03 -0400
From: "Mark J. Reed" <email@hidden>
Subject: Re: AppleScript a miserable and utter failure
To: "Gary (Lists)" <email@hidden>
Cc: AppleScript Users <
email@hidden>
Message-ID: <email@hidden>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
On 9/28/05, Gary (Lists) <email@hidden> wrote:
> AppleScript programmers, unlike Perl programmers, are flat-out resistant to
> using 'libs' or 'mods'.
I suspect that has a lot to do with the difficulty of writing 'libs'
or 'mods' for AppleScript IN APPLESCRIPT. There's no simple
"include"/"require"/"use" directive, so unless you're willing to go
learn how to write an OSAX (in some non-AppleScript language), it's
very difficult to modularize AS code. Imagine how much smaller CPAN
would be if the only way to write a Perl module were to use XS!
--
Mark J. Reed <email@hidden>
------------------------------
Message: 7
Date: Thu, 29 Sep 2005 09:46:44 +1000
From: Shane Stanley <
email@hidden>
Subject: Re: AppleScript a miserable and utter failure
To: AS users lists <email@hidden>
Message-ID: <
BF616884.21D10%email@hidden>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
On 29/9/05 8:47 AM, "has" <
email@hidden> wrote:
> It's hard enough getting developers to follow completely sensible design
> guidelines
I always find this a bit ironic. The people who attack AS with the most
vigor are usually programmers, who attack it for (among other things) its
inconsistency. The people who take the guidelines and implement them
inconsistently are...
--
Shane Stanley <
email@hidden>
------------------------------
Message: 8
Date: Wed, 28 Sep 2005 19:02:53 -0500
From: "John C. Welch" <email@hidden
>
Subject: Re: AppleScript a miserable and utter failure
To: "AppleScript User's List" <email@hidden>
Message-ID: <
BF60995D.192F15E%email@hidden>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
On 9/28/05 18:46, "Shane Stanley" <
email@hidden> wrote:
>> It's hard enough getting developers to follow completely sensible design
>> guidelines
>
> I always find this a bit ironic. The people who attack AS with the most
> vigor are usually programmers, who attack it for (among other things) its
> inconsistency. The people who take the guidelines and implement them
> inconsistently are...
It's even more frustrating when Apple does it. Like the new podcast terms in
iTunes. First, you can tell that someone who doesn't quite get proper
dictionary design did them. Spaces are okay in AppleScript and wtf is up
with NO information in the dictionary AT ALL???
I mean... updatePodcast, and then, updateAllPodcasts. First, you don't need
two separate commands. All should be a parameter to updatePodcast. Secondly,
"updatePodcast" is just wretched. It's not perl, it's not C, it's
AppleScript. "update podcast" is what it should be.
Finally, how does one use this fascinating command. Evidently, it's a
secret.
That, more than anything else, is what pisses people off about AppleScript,
and it's NOT AppleScript's fault. AppleScript can't make the dictionaries
get built right. Oy.
--
"In akhrot we can bankruptlike as always Barnumism bucolically theirfore
carbonium is aerially and beguiler."
Random text at the bottom of god spam
------------------------------
Message: 9
Date: Wed, 28 Sep 2005 20:15:32 -0400
From: Bill Cheeseman <email@hidden>
Subject: Re: AppleScript a miserable and utter failure
To: AppleScript-Users Mail <email@hidden>
Message-ID: <BF60AA64.2A859%email@hidden
>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
on 2005-09-28 6:47 PM, has at email@hidden wrote:
> Allowing osaxen to pollute the global namespace was a really, really dumb
> decision; AS probably would've gotten away with all its clever trickery if it
> hadn't been for that.) Application/extension authors should be free to use
> whatever identifiers they want, not made to fight bloody combat to the death
> over who gets the last non-crappy identifier on some massive, lumbering
> "Officially Approved" list. I can't think of any other environment that would
> impose such bloated, ridiculous bureaucracy on contributors and get away with
> it,
Objective-C/Cocoa. Many classes and other global-scope identifiers in Cocoa
require a couple of arbitrary characters in a prefix to "guaranty" (rather,
improve the odds of) avoiding namespace collisions. We can live with it, and
it's a great language for getting things done.
If osax writers would follow the advice that's been floating around for the
last 5 or 6 years to stop writing osaxen and write scriptable background
applications instead, these problems would be confined to the few essential
osaxen that really have become part of the language.
Personally, I've never gotten excited about this issue in the AppleScript
context. In the scripter/programmer debate, I've always taken the programmer
side -- of course it's programming. But so what? AppleScript really is
easier, in the early stages of learning, than most of the dozen or so
programming languages I've used. And once you're into it deep enough to run
into these issues on a regular basis, you know how to deal with them.
I still, after 12 years, think the English-like aspirations of AppleScript
serve a good and useful purpose. I never tire of telling the story of a
certain AppleScript book for which I was a tech editor. The author's draft
undertook to describe in simple English what the script he was about to
write was going to do, so that you, dear reader, could understand its logic
before you got down to writing the actual script. I looked at his
plain-English pseudocode preview and thought to myself, I think that will
execute. And it did. He thought he was writing plain English in order to
make his meaning clear, but he was actually writing AppleScript!
--
Bill Cheeseman - email@hidden
Quechee Software, Quechee, Vermont, USA
http://www.quecheesoftware.com
PreFab Software - http://www.prefab.com/scripting.html
The AppleScript Sourcebook -
http://www.AppleScriptSourcebook.com
Vermont Recipes - http://www.stepwise.com/Articles/VermontRecipes
------------------------------
Message: 10
Date: Wed, 28 Sep 2005 18:15:32 -0600
From: Dave Balderstone <email@hidden>
Subject: Re: Excel can't close?
To: AS users lists <
email@hidden>
Message-ID: <email@hidden
>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; delsp=yes; format=flowed
On 28-Sep-05, at 5:39 PM, Shane Stanley wrote:
> Try:
>
> close workbook 1 saving no
Thanks, Shane. I just figured that out myself about 10 minutes ago.
So that changed in Office 2004 too...
What is a "document" in Excel now, then?
------------------------------
Message: 11
Date: Thu, 29 Sep 2005 01:51:45 +0100
From: "Nigel Garvey" <
email@hidden>
Subject: Re: Records
To: "AppleScript Users" <email@hidden
>
Message-ID: <email@hidden>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Martin Orpen wrote on Wed, 28 Sep 2005 22:28:31 +0100:
>Determined as I am to take an alternative path, I had a bit of fun with:
>
>
>tell application "Font Book"
> set a to item 1 of typefaces
> set b to typeface additional info of a
>end tell
>try
> b as string
>on error errMsg
> set the clipboard to errMsg
>end try
>tell application "TextEdit"
> make new document at beginning of documents
>end tell
>tell application "System Events"
> activate application "TextEdit"
> tell application process "TextEdit"
> key code 9 using {command down}
> end tell
>end tell
>set myList to {}
>tell application "TextEdit"
> set foo to document 1
> set t to count of words of foo
> repeat with n from 1 to t
> set c to color of word n of foo
> if c is {0, 26214, 26214} then
> set end of myList to word n of foo
> end if
> end repeat
>end tell
>myList
>
>
>(my variable colour is probably peculiar to me, so it'll need to be
>adjusted)
The problem with this method on my machine is that the error message, the
user (barred) labels, and the string values all come out as black. Only
the values 'true' and 'false', and the 'string' in the error message, are
in my colour for application keywords. If the labels weren't barred,
they'd have the same application keyword colour as the 'true' and 'false'
values. Also, getting the individual 'words' won't suit multi-word labels.
>But, this has thrown up a peculiar problem. The script doesn't return all of
>the names:
>
>-->
>{
> "FBFaceSubFamilyName",
> "FBFaceCopyrightName",
> "FBFaceIsEnabled",
> "FBFaceUniqueName"
>}
It doesn't look as though these particular labels _are_ barred on your
machine. I'm surprised they are on mine. It only happens with Font Book.
Maybe my copy has a problem. (?)
>The reason being that the value of the last record contains a date which
>contains a comma and the script refuses to acknowledge that there are any
>words in the TextEdit document after than comma :(
>
>That strikes me as odd behaviour - or is it *expected*?
I'm seeing the same thing here. TextEdit doesn't return any 'words'
beyond the middle of a date in one of the string values. Using
'attribute' runs is more successful and would suit multi-word labels, but
would still give the wrong results with certain keyword values.
NG
------------------------------
Message: 12
Date: Thu, 29 Sep 2005 09:12:47 +0100
From: has <
email@hidden>
Subject: modularizing code [was: Re: AppleScript a miserable and utter
failure]
To: email@hidden
Message-ID: <a05200f0fbf60deef9d4c@[82.27.255.83]>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Mark J. Reed wrote:
> > AppleScript programmers, unlike Perl programmers, are flat-out resistant to
> > using 'libs' or 'mods'.
>
>I suspect that has a lot to do with the difficulty of writing 'libs'
>or 'mods' for AppleScript IN APPLESCRIPT. There's no simple
>"include"/"require"/"use" directive, so unless you're willing to go
>learn how to write an OSAX (in some non-AppleScript language), it's
>very difficult to modularize AS code.
I
disagree. Lack of a native no-brainer 'import' command is definitely a
chilling factor, but there's more to it than that. Writing (and using)
libraries in AS is a little bit of a chore compared to most languages
(less support from the language means more boilerplate coding for
users), but it's still much, much easier than learning how to write
good modular, reusable code in the first place. But even when ASers are
supplied with free, good quality, pre-written libraries and third-party
import mechanism (with point-n-click wizards to reduce it to
nearly-no-brainer level), most are still extremely reluctant to use it.
If
ASers really wanted to use libraries you'd hear all about it, but in
fact there's very little noise. Therefore, IMO it's primarily a
cultural, not technical, problem. The two major sticking points I see
are: 1. many ASers just aren't aware of/comfortable with abstraction,
and the higher the level the harder they find it to wrap their heads
around; and 2. a hearty dose of 'Not Invented Here' syndrome, as Gary's
mentioned.
Perversely, the same folks have no problems using
osaxen, which fulfill much the same role, but that may be because
osaxen are a fait accompli: their black box nature means "what you
can't see can't hurt you" so they just pick up and use them without
thinking. Whereas libraries, being written in AppleScript lie too close
to home, making them vunerable to over-analysis, projection and
paranoia. Folk scare themselves off by thinking too hard about all the
details, instead of doing what they do with osaxen: ignore what's
inside the thing and just use it. It's all about learning to let go and
enjoy the ride; something folks in other languages are happy to do, and
what abstraction is all about.
has
--
http://freespace.virgin.net/hamish.sanderson/
------------------------------
Message: 13
Date: Thu, 29 Sep 2005 09:14:32 +0100
From: has <email@hidden>
Subject: code reuse [was: Re: AppleScript a miserable and utter
failure]
To:
email@hidden
Message-ID: <a05200f11bf60e1532cbd@[82.27.255.83]>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Shane Stanley wrote:
> > AppleScript programmers, unlike Perl programmers, are flat-out resistant to
> > using 'libs' or 'mods'.
>
>That's true. One reason, I think, is because the really hard work for a lot
>of scripters is not so much in things like list handlers or date handlers,
>but in dealing with the applications.
>[...]
>One of the things I find -- and many others have also commented on -- is how
>little of what we seem to do lends itself to reusable subroutines.
I
don't buy that argument. I think the real reason is that writing
non-trivial reusable code is HARD, and requires a level of knowledge
and skill that most ASers, not being trained professional programmers,
don't have. It also requires foresight, planning and time, and a
willingness to put long-term benefit over short-term cost; factors that
often scupper attempts at formal code reuse even for professionals.
>Sure,
we reuse stuff all the time -- but very often with changes. So you end
up ... taking [a subroutine] you already wrote for something similar
and modifying it to suit.
That sort of statement's a honking big
flag to anyone looking to refactor code into reusable chunks; gold dust
to a '49er. But unless you know all the tricks and techniques for
transforming it from here to there (and have the time and support
needed to do it), you ain't going to be able to make it happen (or not
effectively enough to reap the benefits anyway).
>I'm
thinking about the sorts of scripters I meet, who tend to be scripting
the sort of apps I do -- InDesign, QuarkXPress, Illustrator, and so on.
And that's where efficiencies have a huge bearing on performance (and
often where performance really matters).
Insert obligatory 'premature optimisation is the root of all evil' comment here.
>Now maybe we just need re-educating in the Right Way. Or maybe just as
>AppleScript seems to annoy people like John Gruber and Doug McNutt, it
>attracts people who are more comfortable with a different approach.
A
technically inferior approach, true. But never underestimate the vast
power of "Worse is Better". I mean, given the choice between drinking
beer, chasing girls, enjoying sunny afternoons in the park, or spending
several years locked in a dark room slaving away to become a Level 18
Code Mage, which would most folks here rather do? :p
has
--
http://freespace.virgin.net/hamish.sanderson/
------------------------------
Message: 14
Date: Thu, 29 Sep 2005 09:19:51 +0100
From: has <email@hidden>
Subject: Re: AppleScript a miserable and utter failure
To:
email@hidden
Message-ID: <a05200f12bf60e7e2b670@[82.27.255.83]>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Bill Cheeseman wrote:
> > Application/extension authors should be free to use
> > whatever identifiers they want, not made to fight bloody combat to the death
> > over who gets the last non-crappy identifier on some massive, lumbering
> > "Officially Approved" list. I can't think of any other environment that would
> > impose such bloated, ridiculous bureaucracy on contributors and get away with
> > it,
>
>Objective-C/Cocoa.
C
and Smalltalk too. None of which have a vast Soviet-style Bureau of
Compulsory Identifier Naming controlling them, however, which was my
point about 'terminology czars'. Folk using those languages are aware
of this flaw and how to minimize/avoid it (e.g. by independently
applying some sort of name prefix to their own code by way of ad-hoc
name-spacing); they might grumble a bit but they generally just get on
and deal with it.
>If osax writers would follow the advice that's been floating around for the
>last 5 or 6 years to stop writing osaxen and write scriptable background
>applications instead, these problems would be confined to the few essential
>osaxen that really have become part of the language.
Yup.
If folk really want to bug someone, they should bug Apple to declare
the OSAX API deprecated to all third-party developers. Bit late now,
but still better than never.
has
--
http://freespace.virgin.net/hamish.sanderson/
------------------------------
Message: 15
Date: Thu, 29 Sep 2005 09:33:27 +0100
From: has <email@hidden>
Subject: 'inconsistency' [was: Re: AppleScript a miserable and utter
failure]
To:
email@hidden
Message-ID: <a05200f10bf60e0f0158b@[82.27.255.83]>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Shane Stanley wrote:
> > It's hard enough getting developers to follow completely sensible design
> > guidelines
>
>I always find this a bit ironic. The people who attack AS with the most
>vigor are usually programmers, who attack it for (among other things) its
>inconsistency. The people who take the guidelines and implement them
>inconsistently are...
...,
to be fair, probably not the same programmers. AS itself is quite
consistent; it's just an absolute bear trying to figure out what all
the rules it follows are. And the variations in style and standard of
third-party application APIs is no greater than the variations in style
and standard between third-party library APIs in other languages.
I've
said it before, I'll say it again: the real problem is LACK OF
DOCUMENTATION. Those who describe application interfaces as
'frustratingly inconsistent' merely misdiagnose a symptom and miss the
cause completely. Application developers who do not provide
comprehensive interface documentation need to be held accountable by
their users, because without accurate, detailed documentation users are
left to figure out mystery meat APIs with nothing more than intelligent
guesswork and random attempts at applying what's already been found to
work on other applications to see if anything sticks on this one as
well (where the 'inconsistent' misdiagnosis comes from).
has
--
http://freespace.virgin.net/hamish.sanderson/
------------------------------
Message: 16
Date: Thu, 29 Sep 2005 06:16:21 -0500
From: "John C. Welch" <email@hidden>
Subject: Re: code reuse [was: Re: AppleScript a miserable and utter
failure]
To: "AppleScript User's List" <email@hidden>
Message-ID: <
BF613735.192F219%email@hidden>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
On 9/29/05 03:14, "has" <email@hidden> wrote:
>
>> Now maybe we just need re-educating in the Right Way. Or maybe just as
>> AppleScript seems to annoy people like John Gruber and Doug McNutt, it
>> attracts people who are more comfortable with a different approach.
>
> A technically inferior approach, true. But never underestimate the vast power
> of "Worse is Better". I mean, given the choice between drinking beer, chasing
> girls, enjoying sunny afternoons in the park, or spending several years locked
> in a dark room slaving away to become a Level 18 Code Mage, which would most
> folks here rather do? :p
The former? But I grew up in Miami, so that skews my answers.
The problem is also exacerbated by the fact that most folks are happy as
clams with "good enough"
--
I had no system of shooting as such. It is definitely more in the feeling
side of things that these skills develop. I was at the front five and a half
years, and you just got a feeling for the right amount of lead.
-- Lt. General Guenther Rall, GAF.
------------------------------
Message: 17
Date: Thu, 29 Sep 2005 06:17:21 -0500
From: "John C. Welch" <
email@hidden>
Subject: Re: 'inconsistency' [was: Re: AppleScript a miserable and
utter failure]
To: "AppleScript User's List" <email@hidden
>
Message-ID: <BF613771.192F21B%email@hidden>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
On 9/29/05 03:33, "has" <
email@hidden> wrote:
>
> I've said it before, I'll say it again: the real problem is LACK OF
> DOCUMENTATION. Those who describe application interfaces as 'frustratingly
> inconsistent' merely misdiagnose a symptom and miss the cause completely.
> Application developers who do not provide comprehensive interface
> documentation need to be held accountable by their users, because without
> accurate, detailed documentation users are left to figure out mystery meat
> APIs with nothing more than intelligent guesswork and random attempts at
> applying what's already been found to work on other applications to see if
> anything sticks on this one as well (where the 'inconsistent' misdiagnosis
> comes from).
Yah...what he said, double for me.
--
"Getting married to have sex is like buying a 747 to get free peanuts."
Jeff Foxworthy
------------------------------
Message: 18
Date: Thu, 29 Sep 2005 14:21:08 +0200
From: Giampiero Cairo <email@hidden>
Subject: subfolder in entourage
To: email@hidden
Message-ID: <email@hidden
>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; delsp=yes; format=flowed
Hi, I have a problem. I want to get the subfolder of folder "InBox"
This is my snippet :
tell application "Microsoft Entourage"
set FoldersList to "" as string
repeat with i in every folder
set FoldersList to name of i
tell FoldersList
repeat with z in folder of FoldersList
set FoldersList2 to name of z
end repeat
end tell
end repeat
end tell
When i try to run this script I get this exception The error is
"Impossible to get folder of Inbox"
Can you help me?
Thank you
Giampiero
------------------------------
_______________________________________________
Applescript-users mailing list
email@hidden
http://lists.apple.com/mailman/listinfo/applescript-users
End of Applescript-users Digest, Vol 2, Issue 635
*************************************************
_______________________________________________
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