Is this valid: server.permanent.rawset("this",that)?

can the permanent table be treated like an ordinary table? things like server.permanent.rawset(“this”,that) ?
if so how is interaction with the server table played out?

It is, in fact, just an ordinary table. But I’m curious as to why you want/need to know that?

Changing values in server.permanent doesn’t interact with the server’s copy of the table at all: to do that, you need to use server.setpermanentvalues().


I had made two calls to server.setpermanentvalues():
server.setpermanentvalues({“This”,this}); // save "this"
server.setpermanentvalues({“That”,that});// save “that”, wipes out this
I expect “That” to be added to the permanent values table, but it wiped out the old table and replaced it with a new one.

would this do what i expect:
server.permanent.rawset(“This”,this) ;
server.permanent.rawset(“That”,that) ;
server.setpermanentvalues(server.permanent) ;

Yes it would, but so would this:
server.permanent.This <- this; server.permanent.That <- that; server.setpermanentvalues(server.permanent);
or the even more natural:
server.permanent["This"] = this; server.permanent["That"] = that; server.setpermanentvalues(server.permanent);
The only difference between “rawset” and normal setting, is when the table is “slightly magic” and has a delegate. The server.permanent table is not magic; it doesn’t have a delegate. You can use it like a normal table.


thanks peter,
those few lines help with the “<-” operator as well, i did real get what it did.
i wasn’t thinking clearly about the use of the permanent table. it makes more sense to have a imp table called “keepThisStuff”, then follow any alterations to that table with a server.setpermanentvalues(keepThisStuff);
and use server.permanent only when i need to initialize:
keepThisStuff = server.permanent;
is this more better?
btw-- how are you imbedding the html? your posts avery readable?