At 3:25 PM +0000 12/5/02, you wrote:
Good example.Also, contrary to popular belief, there *is* a difference between explicit puppeting and auto-puppeting, so it's by no means obsolete, as you suggest. The difference is that auto-puppeted sprites remain under control of the score.To illustrate this, try creating a tween, then set the locH property of the sprite, without puppeting it. The sprite will continue to be controlled by the score for all properties except locH. OTOH, if you puppet the sprite first, the sprite will completely stop moving until you un-puppet it.
One way of looking at the difference between the two puppeting modes is that explicit puppeting is taking total control of the sprite. One byproduct (burden) of this is that theLingo programmer have to take on the responsibility of managing all it's relevant properties.
So while old-style puppeting is not obsolete, it's generally not necessary if you only want to modify some of the props (which is the standard application).
Most folks found that it's kind of tedious to have to handle everything if they only wanted to modify a little bit, so they now use auto-puppeting (and may not even know it).
As in your example - auto-puppeting allows the score to playback the stored locV position tween while Lingo gets used to modify the locH. This would be a pain to do with old-style puppeting.
And as you noted if there was no sprite already there to manipulate, one must use old-style puppeting to get the member on stage, creating the so-called 'dynamic sprite'.
Of course, even this can be worked around by using placeholder sprites.
hth
-Buzz
[To remove yourself from this list, or to change to digest mode, go to http://www.penworks.com/lingo-l.cgi To post messages to the list, email [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Problems, email [EMAIL PROTECTED]). Lingo-L is for learning and helping with programming Lingo. Thanks!]
