Width and height image gets bigger on changing angle
Hi, When I add an image as a control to a new stack it gets bigger when I set an angle of 270. --- on mouseup set the angle of me to 270 clone me set the angle of me to 0 end mouseup --- Width and height are changed by 1 px. Is that normal behaviour? How do I prevent this? LC 8.1.8 greetings, William ___ use-livecode mailing list use-livecode@lists.runrev.com Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription preferences: http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode
Re: Width and height image gets bigger on changing angle
Answering my own question: it works fine when you use 'rotate by -90' groeten, William 2018-01-20 12:10 GMT+01:00 William de Smet : > Hi, > > When I add an image as a control to a new stack it gets bigger when I set > an angle of 270. > > --- > on mouseup > set the angle of me to 270 > clone me > set the angle of me to 0 > end mouseup > --- > > Width and height are changed by 1 px. > Is that normal behaviour? > How do I prevent this? > > LC 8.1.8 > > > > > greetings, > > William > > > ___ use-livecode mailing list use-livecode@lists.runrev.com Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription preferences: http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode
Dropbox help 2
Hi Friends,
what is wrong with this script?
Anything to INTI before using "dropboxupload"?
Or anything else I forgot?
LC 9 dp 11, macOS 10.13.2.
...
put url("binfile:/Volumes/HD500/Dokumente2/test1.livecode") into pData
## a small stack of 27 KB
put "My personal Access token as generated from Dropbox here" into pAccessToken
dropboxUpload pAccessToken, "dropboxtestlc1.rev", "overwrite", FALSE, FALSE,
pData
put it into fld 1
## I waited for hours, but fld 1 remains empty? No error, nada...
...
Thanks a lot in advance!
Best
Klaus
--
Klaus Major
http://www.major-k.de
kl...@major-k.de
___
use-livecode mailing list
use-livecode@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode
Re: Dropbox help 2
Am 20.01.2018 um 19:42 schrieb Klaus major-k via use-livecode : > > Hi Friends, > > ... > Anything to INTI before using "dropboxupload"? sorry, I meant INIT. -- Klaus Major http://www.major-k.de kl...@major-k.de ___ use-livecode mailing list use-livecode@lists.runrev.com Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription preferences: http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode
Re: Dropbox help 2
On 1/20/18 12:42 PM, Klaus major-k via use-livecode wrote:
Hi Friends,
what is wrong with this script?
Anything to INTI before using "dropboxupload"?
Or anything else I forgot?
LC 9 dp 11, macOS 10.13.2.
...
put url("binfile:/Volumes/HD500/Dokumente2/test1.livecode") into pData
## a small stack of 27 KB
put "My personal Access token as generated from Dropbox here" into pAccessToken
dropboxUpload pAccessToken, "dropboxtestlc1.rev", "overwrite", FALSE, FALSE,
pData
put it into fld 1
## I waited for hours, but fld 1 remains empty? No error, nada...
...
Try checking the result too.
--
Jacqueline Landman Gay | jac...@hyperactivesw.com
HyperActive Software | http://www.hyperactivesw.com
___
use-livecode mailing list
use-livecode@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode
Re: Dropbox help 2
Hi Jaques,
> Am 20.01.2018 um 20:58 schrieb J. Landman Gay via use-livecode
> :
>
> On 1/20/18 12:42 PM, Klaus major-k via use-livecode wrote:
>> Hi Friends,
>> what is wrong with this script?
>> Anything to INTI before using "dropboxupload"?
>> Or anything else I forgot?
>> LC 9 dp 11, macOS 10.13.2.
>> ...
>> put url("binfile:/Volumes/HD500/Dokumente2/test1.livecode") into pData
>> ## a small stack of 27 KB
>> put "My personal Access token as generated from Dropbox here" into
>> pAccessToken
>> dropboxUpload pAccessToken, "dropboxtestlc1.rev", "overwrite", FALSE, FALSE,
>> pData
>> put it into fld 1
>> ## I waited for hours, but fld 1 remains empty? No error, nada...
>> ...
>
> Try checking the result too.
ah, yes, sure! 8-)
I get -> tsneterr: HTTP response code 400 returned from server
According to the Dropbox API docs this means -> Bad input parameter.
(if the LC dropbox library uses the HTTP protocol!)
So what parameter in my script may be wrong, if this is the actual problem?
Thank you!
> --
> Jacqueline Landman Gay | jac...@hyperactivesw.com
> HyperActive Software | http://www.hyperactivesw.com
Best
Klaus
--
Klaus Major
http://www.major-k.de
kl...@major-k.de
___
use-livecode mailing list
use-livecode@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode
Re: Dropbox help 2
HA! Found it! :-)
I had to add a SLASH at the beginning og the PATH parameter:
...
dropboxUpload pAccessToken, "/dropboxtestlc1.rev", "overwrite", FALSE, FALSE,
pData
...
> Am 20.01.2018 um 21:11 schrieb Klaus major-k via use-livecode
> :
>
> Hi Jaques,
>
>> Am 20.01.2018 um 20:58 schrieb J. Landman Gay via use-livecode
>> :
>>
>> On 1/20/18 12:42 PM, Klaus major-k via use-livecode wrote:
>>> Hi Friends,
>>> what is wrong with this script?
>>> Anything to INTI before using "dropboxupload"?
>>> Or anything else I forgot?
>>> LC 9 dp 11, macOS 10.13.2.
>>> ...
>>> put url("binfile:/Volumes/HD500/Dokumente2/test1.livecode") into pData
>>> ## a small stack of 27 KB
>>> put "My personal Access token as generated from Dropbox here" into
>>> pAccessToken
>>> dropboxUpload pAccessToken, "dropboxtestlc1.rev", "overwrite", FALSE,
>>> FALSE, pData
>>> put it into fld 1
>>> ## I waited for hours, but fld 1 remains empty? No error, nada...
>>> ...
>>
>> Try checking the result too.
>
> ah, yes, sure! 8-)
>
> I get -> tsneterr: HTTP response code 400 returned from server
>
> According to the Dropbox API docs this means -> Bad input parameter.
> (if the LC dropbox library uses the HTTP protocol!)
>
> So what parameter in my script may be wrong, if this is the actual problem?
>
> Thank you!
>
>> --
>> Jacqueline Landman Gay | jac...@hyperactivesw.com
>> HyperActive Software | http://www.hyperactivesw.com
>
> Best
>
> Klaus
>
> --
> Klaus Major
> http://www.major-k.de
> kl...@major-k.de
>
>
> ___
> use-livecode mailing list
> use-livecode@lists.runrev.com
> Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription
> preferences:
> http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode
--
Klaus Major
http://www.major-k.de
kl...@major-k.de
___
use-livecode mailing list
use-livecode@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode
Do script-only stacks support "chained" behaviors?
This page http://livecode.wikia.com/wiki/Behavior describes "chained" behaviors, saying that button 1 can have button 2 as its behavior, and if button 2 has button 3 as *its* behavior, then button 1 will have access to the handlers in both button 2 and button 3. This seems to work in LC 8.1.8, although chained behaviors seem to be somewhat brittle -- I'm seeing that sometimes closing and opening a stack causes button 1 in the above example to inherit from button 2, but not from button 3. SO: is there a way to support this for script-only stacks? As far as I know, script-only stacks only support defining the name and script of the stack, and no properties at all, i.e. no ability to set a behavior for the script-only stack. So in the above example, button 3 could be replaced by a script-only stack, but button 2 could not (without losing the inheritance from button 3). Is that correct? gc ___ use-livecode mailing list use-livecode@lists.runrev.com Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription preferences: http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode
Re: Do script-only stacks support "chained" behaviors?
I believe they do, because I think Trevor is doing this with Levure. On Sat, Jan 20, 2018 at 5:51 PM, Geoff Canyon via use-livecode < use-livecode@lists.runrev.com> wrote: > This page http://livecode.wikia.com/wiki/Behavior describes "chained" > behaviors, saying that button 1 can have button 2 as its behavior, and if > button 2 has button 3 as *its* behavior, then button 1 will have access to > the handlers in both button 2 and button 3. > > This seems to work in LC 8.1.8, although chained behaviors seem to be > somewhat brittle -- I'm seeing that sometimes closing and opening a stack > causes button 1 in the above example to inherit from button 2, but not from > button 3. > > SO: is there a way to support this for script-only stacks? As far as I > know, script-only stacks only support defining the name and script of the > stack, and no properties at all, i.e. no ability to set a behavior for the > script-only stack. So in the above example, button 3 could be replaced by a > script-only stack, but button 2 could not (without losing the inheritance > from button 3). > > Is that correct? > > gc > ___ > use-livecode mailing list > use-livecode@lists.runrev.com > Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your > subscription preferences: > http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode > -- On the first day, God created the heavens and the Earth On the second day, God created the oceans. On the third day, God put the animals on hold for a few hours, and did a little diving. And God said, "This is good." ___ use-livecode mailing list use-livecode@lists.runrev.com Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription preferences: http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode
Re: Do script-only stacks support "chained" behaviors?
On Sat, Jan 20, 2018 at 5:53 PM Mike Kerner via use-livecode < use-livecode@lists.runrev.com> wrote: > I believe they do, because I think Trevor is doing this with Levure. You can’t specify the behavior property of a script only stack in the script only stack itself. You have to assign the behavior of the script only stack using code after the stack has been loaded into memory. The behavior property setting won’t persist however. Trevor DeVore ScreenSteps > ___ use-livecode mailing list use-livecode@lists.runrev.com Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription preferences: http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode
Re: Do script-only stacks support "chained" behaviors?
Well that's too bad for anyone who's currently using chained behaviors and wants to use source control (i.e. convert to script-only stacks). ___ use-livecode mailing list use-livecode@lists.runrev.com Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription preferences: http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode
Re: Do script-only stacks support "chained" behaviors?
There are also plenty of examples in the IDE - most of the palettes have their own specific behavior chained to the generic palette behavior. Most of them do something like the following handler: on setAsBehavior pTarget dispatch "setAsBehavior" to stack revIDEFrameBehavior() with the long id of this me set the behavior of pTarget to the long id of this me end setAsBehavior They then call the setAsBehavior handler on preOpenStack. On Sun, Jan 21, 2018 at 12:14 AM Trevor DeVore via use-livecode < use-livecode@lists.runrev.com> wrote: > On Sat, Jan 20, 2018 at 5:53 PM Mike Kerner via use-livecode < > use-livecode@lists.runrev.com> wrote: > > > I believe they do, because I think Trevor is doing this with Levure. > > > You can’t specify the behavior property of a script only stack in the > script only stack itself. You have to assign the behavior of the script > only stack using code after the stack has been loaded into memory. The > behavior property setting won’t persist however. > > Trevor DeVore > ScreenSteps > > > > ___ > use-livecode mailing list > use-livecode@lists.runrev.com > Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your > subscription preferences: > http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode ___ use-livecode mailing list use-livecode@lists.runrev.com Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription preferences: http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode
Re: Do script-only stacks support "chained" behaviors?
On Sat, Jan 20, 2018 at 6:43 PM Geoff Canyon wrote: > Well that's too bad for anyone who's currently using chained behaviors and > wants to use source control (i.e. convert to script-only stacks). > Yes it is. For now I just set the chained behaviors for any script only stacks that require them when the app starts up. Not ideal, but worth it in order to manage the scripts with source control. Trevor DeVore ScreenSteps ___ use-livecode mailing list use-livecode@lists.runrev.com Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription preferences: http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode
Re: Do script-only stacks support "chained" behaviors?
I should clarify: say you want stack 1 to have behavior stack 2 which has behavior stack 3. In the IDE we commonly do: Stack 1: on preOpenStack dispatch "setAsBehavior" to stack "Stack 2" with the long id of me end preOpenStack Stack 2: on setAsBehavior pTarget dispatch "setAsBehavior" to stack "Stack 3" with the long id of this me set the behavior of pTarget to the long id of this me end setAsBehavior Stack 3: on setAsBehavior pTarget set the behavior of pTarget to the long id of this me end setAsBehavior On Sun, Jan 21, 2018 at 1:12 AM Ali Lloyd wrote: > There are also plenty of examples in the IDE - most of the palettes have > their own specific behavior chained to the generic palette behavior. > > Most of them do something like the following handler: > on setAsBehavior pTarget dispatch "setAsBehavior" to stack > revIDEFrameBehavior() with the long id of this me set the behavior of > pTarget to the long id of this me end setAsBehavior > > They then call the setAsBehavior handler on preOpenStack. > > On Sun, Jan 21, 2018 at 12:14 AM Trevor DeVore via use-livecode < > use-livecode@lists.runrev.com> wrote: > >> On Sat, Jan 20, 2018 at 5:53 PM Mike Kerner via use-livecode < >> use-livecode@lists.runrev.com> wrote: >> >> > I believe they do, because I think Trevor is doing this with Levure. >> >> >> You can’t specify the behavior property of a script only stack in the >> script only stack itself. You have to assign the behavior of the script >> only stack using code after the stack has been loaded into memory. The >> behavior property setting won’t persist however. >> >> Trevor DeVore >> ScreenSteps >> >> > >> ___ >> use-livecode mailing list >> use-livecode@lists.runrev.com >> Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your >> subscription preferences: >> http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode > > ___ use-livecode mailing list use-livecode@lists.runrev.com Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription preferences: http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode
Re: Do script-only stacks support "chained" behaviors?
I get that it can be done, I just hesitate to start monkeying with people's scripts like that in Navigator (which is going to have a conversion function in the next update). For now I'm thinking that I just skip anything with chained behaviors, unless someone has a better suggestion. On Sat, Jan 20, 2018 at 5:15 PM, Trevor DeVore via use-livecode < use-livecode@lists.runrev.com> wrote: > > For now I just set the chained behaviors for any script only stacks that > require them when the app starts up. Not ideal, but worth it in order to > manage the scripts with source control. > > ___ use-livecode mailing list use-livecode@lists.runrev.com Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription preferences: http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode
Re: Do script-only stacks support "chained" behaviors?
Dumb question, Geoff, are you going to embed/call Scriptifier to achieve that or are you going to do something else? On Sat, Jan 20, 2018 at 8:25 PM, Geoff Canyon via use-livecode < use-livecode@lists.runrev.com> wrote: > I get that it can be done, I just hesitate to start monkeying with people's > scripts like that in Navigator (which is going to have a conversion > function in the next update). For now I'm thinking that I just skip > anything with chained behaviors, unless someone has a better suggestion. > > On Sat, Jan 20, 2018 at 5:15 PM, Trevor DeVore via use-livecode < > use-livecode@lists.runrev.com> wrote: > > > > For now I just set the chained behaviors for any script only stacks that > > require them when the app starts up. Not ideal, but worth it in order to > > manage the scripts with source control. > > > > > ___ > use-livecode mailing list > use-livecode@lists.runrev.com > Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your > subscription preferences: > http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode > -- On the first day, God created the heavens and the Earth On the second day, God created the oceans. On the third day, God put the animals on hold for a few hours, and did a little diving. And God said, "This is good." ___ use-livecode mailing list use-livecode@lists.runrev.com Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription preferences: http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode
Re: Do script-only stacks support "chained" behaviors?
I built my own, for several reasons, among them: 1. In the context of Navigator, I needed to support creating stack behaviors for an arbitrary collection of controls, rather than recursing through a stack. 2. I figured that Monte and I would approach the task differently, and we did on several fronts. 3. I thought it would be fun to code. (and it was, I royally borked my first implementation in the product definition phase) I just ran my first test, and it seems to be working. I'm going to build some more tests for it, then release it with stern warnings that anyone using it on a non-backed-up project is foolish, and I am not responsible for the horrible things they do with it. It should be available sometime tomorrow. gc On Sat, Jan 20, 2018 at 7:16 PM, Mike Kerner via use-livecode < use-livecode@lists.runrev.com> wrote: > Dumb question, Geoff, are you going to embed/call Scriptifier to achieve > that or are you going to do something else? > > On Sat, Jan 20, 2018 at 8:25 PM, Geoff Canyon via use-livecode < > use-livecode@lists.runrev.com> wrote: > > > I get that it can be done, I just hesitate to start monkeying with > people's > > scripts like that in Navigator (which is going to have a conversion > > function in the next update). For now I'm thinking that I just skip > > anything with chained behaviors, unless someone has a better suggestion. > > > > On Sat, Jan 20, 2018 at 5:15 PM, Trevor DeVore via use-livecode < > > use-livecode@lists.runrev.com> wrote: > > > > > > For now I just set the chained behaviors for any script only stacks > that > > > require them when the app starts up. Not ideal, but worth it in order > to > > > manage the scripts with source control. > > > > > > > > ___ > > use-livecode mailing list > > use-livecode@lists.runrev.com > > Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your > > subscription preferences: > > http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode > > > > > > -- > On the first day, God created the heavens and the Earth > On the second day, God created the oceans. > On the third day, God put the animals on hold for a few hours, >and did a little diving. > And God said, "This is good." > ___ > use-livecode mailing list > use-livecode@lists.runrev.com > Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your > subscription preferences: > http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode > ___ use-livecode mailing list use-livecode@lists.runrev.com Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription preferences: http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode
Re: Do script-only stacks support "chained" behaviors?
At a fundamental level (unless I'm misreading it) Scriptifier parses a whole stack and looks for objects with a script and no behavior, and turns them into an object with no script and a script-only stack behavior. Navigator will work on whatever controls you tell it to, and will look for objects with a script and no behavior, and turn them into an object with no script and a script-only stack behavior, but it will also find objects with a button behavior (that does not itself have a behavior), and create a script-only stack with that button's script, and set those objects' behavior to the resulting stacks (and the original button, so if there are unconverted controls, they'll still work. I'm definitely going to have to add an "and enclosed controls" option in Navigator. There are several other differences, as there always will be when two different people look at a problem. On Sat, Jan 20, 2018 at 11:01 PM, Geoff Canyon wrote: > I built my own, for several reasons, among them: > > 1. In the context of Navigator, I needed to support creating stack > behaviors for an arbitrary collection of controls, rather than recursing > through a stack. > 2. I figured that Monte and I would approach the task differently, and we > did on several fronts. > 3. I thought it would be fun to code. (and it was, I royally borked my > first implementation in the product definition phase) > > I just ran my first test, and it seems to be working. > > I'm going to build some more tests for it, then release it with stern > warnings that anyone using it on a non-backed-up project is foolish, and I > am not responsible for the horrible things they do with it. It should be > available sometime tomorrow. > > gc > > On Sat, Jan 20, 2018 at 7:16 PM, Mike Kerner via use-livecode < > use-livecode@lists.runrev.com> wrote: > >> Dumb question, Geoff, are you going to embed/call Scriptifier to achieve >> that or are you going to do something else? >> >> On Sat, Jan 20, 2018 at 8:25 PM, Geoff Canyon via use-livecode < >> use-livecode@lists.runrev.com> wrote: >> >> > I get that it can be done, I just hesitate to start monkeying with >> people's >> > scripts like that in Navigator (which is going to have a conversion >> > function in the next update). For now I'm thinking that I just skip >> > anything with chained behaviors, unless someone has a better suggestion. >> > >> > On Sat, Jan 20, 2018 at 5:15 PM, Trevor DeVore via use-livecode < >> > use-livecode@lists.runrev.com> wrote: >> > > >> > > For now I just set the chained behaviors for any script only stacks >> that >> > > require them when the app starts up. Not ideal, but worth it in order >> to >> > > manage the scripts with source control. >> > > >> > > >> > ___ >> > use-livecode mailing list >> > use-livecode@lists.runrev.com >> > Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your >> > subscription preferences: >> > http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode >> > >> >> >> >> -- >> On the first day, God created the heavens and the Earth >> On the second day, God created the oceans. >> On the third day, God put the animals on hold for a few hours, >>and did a little diving. >> And God said, "This is good." >> ___ >> use-livecode mailing list >> use-livecode@lists.runrev.com >> Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your >> subscription preferences: >> http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode >> > > ___ use-livecode mailing list use-livecode@lists.runrev.com Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription preferences: http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode
