Re: TextEdit, is it really that lame?
Re: TextEdit, is it really that lame?
- Subject: Re: TextEdit, is it really that lame?
- From: Bill Briggs <email@hidden>
- Date: Tue, 7 Mar 2006 21:29:24 -0400
At 6:04 PM -0600 3/7/06, John C. Welch wrote:
>On 3/7/06 17:45, "Bill Briggs" <email@hidden> wrote:
>
>>> Microsoft Word (version 2004)
>>
>> I don't use Word, nor am I about to start. Not something I would care about.
>> If you tell me I would find it lame, then I'll believe you until I get in a
>> situation where I have to script it.
>
>Word's scriptability is less lame and more very, very, odd, but that's a
>situation imposed by having to server two masters. It's gotten better, as
>v.X's was really quite unusable.
I do have a copy of it on my PowerBook, only because the university has a site license for it (I would never have bought it) and I from time to time have to open an Excel spreadsheet, so I installed the whole suite. But looking at the dictionary and seeing commands like "create new mailing label document" that have a command and what should be an object all in a very long command don't really inspire confidence in the way it has been done. I take it that you mean it has to satisfy the Javascript OM on Windows, which perverts it in the AppleScript domain.
- web
_______________________________________________
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