|
|
Thanks Mike - I'd guessed so, for you and most elder list members.
Actually, and besides general interest, my concern is how crucial is for an
Xtra to support js. You see, there are some property accessing methods that
can enhance lingo scripting greatly, but simply won't work with js.
"Mike Blaustein" <mblaustein@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:g64nfq$55l$1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>I see very few incentives to move from Lingo to JS. If you don't know
>Lingo, and you do know JS (or ActionScript) then JS can be a more
>approachable way to get into Director. But there is no payoff in someone
>who knows Lingo moving into JS.
>
> I do use a few things that JS syntax enables that is nonexistent in Lingo,
> like RegEx and some string handling capabilities (like toLower()), but in
> general, I will write a small wrapper handler in JS around the function
> and then call it from Lingo.
>
> But then I'm old school and still use verbose syntax in many cases.
From what?
X-Spam-Flag: YES
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.2.1-gr1 (2007-05-02) on
anne.archivum.info
X-Spam-Level: *****
X-Spam-Status: Yes, score=5.2 required=5.0 tests=EMPTY_MESSAGE,MISSING_DATE,
MISSING_HEADERS,MISSING_MID,MISSING_SUBJECT,NO_HEADERS_MESSAGE,NO_RECEIVED,
NO_RELAYS,TVD_SPACE_RATIO autolearn=disabled version=3.2.1-gr1
X-Spam-Report:
* 0.0 MISSING_MID Missing Message-Id: header
* 0.0 MISSING_DATE Missing Date: header
* -0.0 NO_RELAYS Informational: message was not relayed via SMTP
* 0.0 MISSING_HEADERS Missing To: header
* 2.9 TVD_SPACE_RATIO BODY: TVD_SPACE_RATIO
* 2.3 MISSING_SUBJECT Missing Subject: header
* 0.0 EMPTY_MESSAGE Message appears to have no textual parts and no
* Subject: text
* -0.0 NO_RECEIVED Informational: message has no Received headers
* 0.0 NO_HEADERS_MESSAGE Message appears to be missing most RFC-822
* headers
Subject: *****SPAM*****
X-Spam-Prev-Subject: (nonexistent)
|
|