Re: 65535 limit?
Thanks Jim for the input. Yes, because of Rev's limitation, I will have to redesign using something like what you describe. But given my particular application, keeping all images side-by-side would have been far preferable and simpler. Fred On Jan 6, 2010, at 11:00 AM, Jim Ault wrote: Message: 13 Date: Tue, 5 Jan 2010 15:12:04 -0800 From: Jim Ault jimaultw...@yahoo.com Subject: Re: 65535 limit? To: How to use Revolution use-revolution@lists.runrev.com Message-ID: 4810f2be-9d67-45be-ae93-d32291627...@yahoo.com Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed; delsp=yes Rather than worry about maximums and future changes that could hamper performance, why not make several smaller groups that 'overlap' in a collage of sorts, then move all the groups as one? Maybe I am missing the point, so let me know. Jim Ault Las Vegas On Jan 5, 2010, at 11:22 AM, Fred Moyer wrote: The Stack Inspector states that the default maximum width of a stack is 65535. However, on my Mac I can't set the width of a stack to greater than 32767 pixels (half of 65534.) Similarly, on page 49 of the User's guide, the Maximum size of an object is given as Unlimited. But I can't set the width of an object to greater than 32767. What is bizarre is that I can make a control 65534 pixels wide by making the rect of the control (for example) -32767, 10, 32767,100. However, if I try to make the rect of the stack -32767, 10, 32767,100 Revolution crashes or resizes to a seemingly random rect. Are these stated limits actually incorrect or am I misunderstanding something? Does it work correctly in Windows (maybe this is a Mac problem)? Does anyone know a workaround to that 32767 limit? And out of curiosity, what is the significance of that number? Will it soon/ ever change? I am designing a stack that consists of a single normal-sized card that contains a normal-sized group whose lockloc is set to true. The group contains many images placed side-by-side next to one another. One can scroll to any picture almost instantly by using the group's HScrollbar. This stack is great but sometimes there are so many images in the group that the formattedwidth of the group is greater than 32768 -- or would be, but I can't get to that point while setting up the stack. All kinds of strange things happen. Incidentally 65535 would be wide enough to accommodate my needs, so if Revolution simply worked as stated, it would be fine. Any ideas/ comments? ___ use-revolution mailing list use-revolution@lists.runrev.com Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription preferences: http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution
Re: 65535 limit?
I guess what I was thinking is that the various groups are positioned edge to edge to make them 'side by side', kind of like a 3-dimensional patchwork quilt, or a technicolor dreamcoat. Perhaps what you are saying is that positioning two groups still needs to remain within the 32767. Jim On Jan 8, 2010, at 8:17 AM, Fred Moyer wrote: Thanks Jim for the input. Yes, because of Rev's limitation, I will have to redesign using something like what you describe. But given my particular application, keeping all images side-by-side would have been far preferable and simpler. Fred On Jan 6, 2010, at 11:00 AM, Jim Ault wrote: Message: 13 Date: Tue, 5 Jan 2010 15:12:04 -0800 From: Jim Ault jimaultw...@yahoo.com Subject: Re: 65535 limit? To: How to use Revolution use-revolution@lists.runrev.com Message-ID: 4810f2be-9d67-45be-ae93-d32291627...@yahoo.com Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed; delsp=yes Rather than worry about maximums and future changes that could hamper performance, why not make several smaller groups that 'overlap' in a collage of sorts, then move all the groups as one? Maybe I am missing the point, so let me know. Jim Ault Las Vegas On Jan 5, 2010, at 11:22 AM, Fred Moyer wrote: The Stack Inspector states that the default maximum width of a stack is 65535. However, on my Mac I can't set the width of a stack to greater than 32767 pixels (half of 65534.) Similarly, on page 49 of the User's guide, the Maximum size of an object is given as Unlimited. But I can't set the width of an object to greater than 32767. What is bizarre is that I can make a control 65534 pixels wide by making the rect of the control (for example) -32767, 10, 32767,100. However, if I try to make the rect of the stack -32767, 10, 32767,100 Revolution crashes or resizes to a seemingly random rect. Are these stated limits actually incorrect or am I misunderstanding something? Does it work correctly in Windows (maybe this is a Mac problem)? Does anyone know a workaround to that 32767 limit? And out of curiosity, what is the significance of that number? Will it soon/ ever change? I am designing a stack that consists of a single normal-sized card that contains a normal-sized group whose lockloc is set to true. The group contains many images placed side-by-side next to one another. One can scroll to any picture almost instantly by using the group's HScrollbar. This stack is great but sometimes there are so many images in the group that the formattedwidth of the group is greater than 32768 -- or would be, but I can't get to that point while setting up the stack. All kinds of strange things happen. Incidentally 65535 would be wide enough to accommodate my needs, so if Revolution simply worked as stated, it would be fine. Any ideas/ comments? ___ use-revolution mailing list use-revolution@lists.runrev.com Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription preferences: http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution Jim Ault Las Vegas ___ use-revolution mailing list use-revolution@lists.runrev.com Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription preferences: http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution
Re: 65535 limit?
In response to your question about the magic number 32767. This number has an ancient history, as anyone that has worked with early mainframe machines will know. And I don't think there are too many of us on this list. 32767 was the maximum value(in binary) that could be held in one word. BTW, you have to be a master of binary math's in order to understand this. 32768 meant that the number was negative. As you pointed out 65534 is half of 32767 logic dictates that that is the maximum positive value that can be held in two words. Just remember this, even though you are cutting code in a human like language when it is passed to the CPU it has to be converted to machine code and therefore is converted back to the ancient language of the first computer gurus. Now, as far as having what I would hazard to call a virtual control. One that is scrollable to the limit you wish to use. It can't be done in runrev. You will have to fake it. How do I know. Well I tried to do the same thing you want to do and after many bashings of my forehead on the keyboard I was pointed in the right direction. If you have a look at this: http://n4.nabble.com/Virtual-Scrolling-window-td325059.HTML#a325060 Perhaps that will straighten things out. Cal ___ use-revolution mailing list use-revolution@lists.runrev.com Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription preferences: http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution
65535 limit?
The Stack Inspector states that the default maximum width of a stack is 65535. However, on my Mac I can't set the width of a stack to greater than 32767 pixels (half of 65534.) Similarly, on page 49 of the User's guide, the Maximum size of an object is given as Unlimited. But I can't set the width of an object to greater than 32767. What is bizarre is that I can make a control 65534 pixels wide by making the rect of the control (for example) -32767, 10, 32767,100. However, if I try to make the rect of the stack -32767, 10, 32767,100 Revolution crashes or resizes to a seemingly random rect. Are these stated limits actually incorrect or am I misunderstanding something? Does it work correctly in Windows (maybe this is a Mac problem)? Does anyone know a workaround to that 32767 limit? And out of curiosity, what is the significance of that number? Will it soon/ ever change? I am designing a stack that consists of a single normal-sized card that contains a normal-sized group whose lockloc is set to true. The group contains many images placed side-by-side next to one another. One can scroll to any picture almost instantly by using the group's HScrollbar. This stack is great but sometimes there are so many images in the group that the formattedwidth of the group is greater than 32768 -- or would be, but I can't get to that point while setting up the stack. All kinds of strange things happen. Incidentally 65535 would be wide enough to accommodate my needs, so if Revolution simply worked as stated, it would be fine. Any ideas/ comments? Thanks. Fred ___ use-revolution mailing list use-revolution@lists.runrev.com Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription preferences: http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution
Re: 65535 limit?
Rather than worry about maximums and future changes that could hamper performance, why not make several smaller groups that 'overlap' in a collage of sorts, then move all the groups as one? Maybe I am missing the point, so let me know. Jim Ault Las Vegas On Jan 5, 2010, at 11:22 AM, Fred Moyer wrote: The Stack Inspector states that the default maximum width of a stack is 65535. However, on my Mac I can't set the width of a stack to greater than 32767 pixels (half of 65534.) Similarly, on page 49 of the User's guide, the Maximum size of an object is given as Unlimited. But I can't set the width of an object to greater than 32767. What is bizarre is that I can make a control 65534 pixels wide by making the rect of the control (for example) -32767, 10, 32767,100. However, if I try to make the rect of the stack -32767, 10, 32767,100 Revolution crashes or resizes to a seemingly random rect. Are these stated limits actually incorrect or am I misunderstanding something? Does it work correctly in Windows (maybe this is a Mac problem)? Does anyone know a workaround to that 32767 limit? And out of curiosity, what is the significance of that number? Will it soon/ ever change? I am designing a stack that consists of a single normal-sized card that contains a normal-sized group whose lockloc is set to true. The group contains many images placed side-by-side next to one another. One can scroll to any picture almost instantly by using the group's HScrollbar. This stack is great but sometimes there are so many images in the group that the formattedwidth of the group is greater than 32768 -- or would be, but I can't get to that point while setting up the stack. All kinds of strange things happen. Incidentally 65535 would be wide enough to accommodate my needs, so if Revolution simply worked as stated, it would be fine. Any ideas/ comments? ___ use-revolution mailing list use-revolution@lists.runrev.com Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription preferences: http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution
Re: 65535 limit?
Hello Fred, I don't have a solution for you but I ran into something once that sounds similar... I dug around and found a comment in one of my scripts: The vScroll of groups is limited at the engine level to 32780 I'm not sure where I got this information or if it is still (or ever) valid. Scott Morrow Elementary Software (Now with 20% less chalk dust!) web http://elementarysoftware.com/ email sc...@elementarysoftware.com -- On Jan 5, 2010, at 11:22 AM, Fred Moyer wrote: The Stack Inspector states that the default maximum width of a stack is 65535. However, on my Mac I can't set the width of a stack to greater than 32767 pixels (half of 65534.) Similarly, on page 49 of the User's guide, the Maximum size of an object is given as Unlimited. But I can't set the width of an object to greater than 32767. What is bizarre is that I can make a control 65534 pixels wide by making the rect of the control (for example) -32767, 10, 32767,100. However, if I try to make the rect of the stack -32767, 10, 32767,100 Revolution crashes or resizes to a seemingly random rect. Are these stated limits actually incorrect or am I misunderstanding something? Does it work correctly in Windows (maybe this is a Mac problem)? Does anyone know a workaround to that 32767 limit? And out of curiosity, what is the significance of that number? Will it soon/ever change? I am designing a stack that consists of a single normal-sized card that contains a normal-sized group whose lockloc is set to true. The group contains many images placed side-by-side next to one another. One can scroll to any picture almost instantly by using the group's HScrollbar. This stack is great but sometimes there are so many images in the group that the formattedwidth of the group is greater than 32768 -- or would be, but I can't get to that point while setting up the stack. All kinds of strange things happen. Incidentally 65535 would be wide enough to accommodate my needs, so if Revolution simply worked as stated, it would be fine. Any ideas/comments? Thanks. Fred ___ use-revolution mailing list use-revolution@lists.runrev.com Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription preferences: http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution ___ use-revolution mailing list use-revolution@lists.runrev.com Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription preferences: http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution
