🚀 go-pugleaf

in article <29942@sun.uucp>, chuq%plaid@Sun.COM (Chuq Von Rospach) says:
> 
> The basic design is this. I've got a stack of cards. For each card in the
> stack, I may have zero or more cards that I want to attach to it. The
> primary card should have a count of the number of cards attached to it as
> well as a way of looking at each of the cards.
> 
Cards in a HyperCard stack are linked in a linear fashion.  In other words,
there are no one-to-many relationships.  There's no problem with attaching 
the count of the number of cards in a string to a primary card, but the
other cards have a first/next order; they aren't arranged in a fan-like
set-up.               

The card count can be part of a script attached to the primary card, but you
may find that you don't need it. A simpler strategy is to 
put a button on the primary card for each card in the list that you
want to reach directly from the primary card (i.e., not in first/next
order).  There are two ways then to set up the transfer.  You can link the
button to the card or you can write a simple script attached to the button
which simply goes to the required card (either by name or ID#).  Personally,
I prefer the latter, using names, because it requires fewer changes as the
stack changes.  My buttons all "go to card x", where x is the name of card.
This way, if I move things around in the stack I don't have to worry about
situations where links may become invalid. Card names are more informative
than id #'s; they form a sort of self-documentation.

Hope this answers a few questions.  (?)

Jan Harrington, sysop
Scholastech Telecommuications
ihnp4!husc6!amcad!stech!sysop or allegra!stech!sysop