Re: [CS4 JS] Scripting Indexes

Article View: adobe.scripting.indesign

Article #1703

Back to adobe.scripting.indesign Previous Next

#1703

From: Harbs
Date: Tue, 27 Jan 2009 13:24

17 lines
1275 bytes

The longer times for entireScript and autoUndo seems to confirm my 
suspicion that there's extra overhead with collapsing the undo stack. I 
wonder what's done differently with fastEntireScript, and why do we need 
the regular entireScript if we are presented with a faster option?

The fact that the UndoModes are read-only is not really that big of a 
deal. All you need to do is add to the beginning of the script:
var undoName = "Script Name";
app.doScript(main, undefined , undefined,UndoModes.fastEntireScript , 
undoName );

instead of:
main().

-- 
Harbs
http://www.in-tools.com

Technical Details

Message-ID: <5347C3019FEE24D4EFB06846368FCFC4@in.webcrossing.la2eafNXanI>

Path: arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!g2news2.google.com!news1.google.com!newshub.sdsu.edu!webcrossing

References: <59b7ae01.-1@webcrossing.la2eafNXanI> <59b7ae01.10@webcrossing.la2eafNXanI>

Show Full Headers

Complete Article Headers

X-Google-Thread: f939a,6b07b633d95c342d
X-Google-Attributes: gidf939a,domainid0,public,usenet
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
From: Harbs
Path: arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!g2news2.google.com!news1.google.com!newshub.sdsu.edu!webcrossing
Newsgroups: adobe.scripting.indesign
Subject: Re: [CS4 JS] Scripting Indexes
Message-ID: <5347C3019FEE24D4EFB06846368FCFC4@in.webcrossing.la2eafNXanI>
Date: Tue, 27 Jan 2009 05:24:55 -0800
References: <59b7ae01.-1@webcrossing.la2eafNXanI> <59b7ae01.10@webcrossing.la2eafNXanI>
Lines: 20
User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.14 (Macintosh/20080421)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit

Reply to Parent Message