Re: the visible of a stack

[Chipp Walters]

I agree. If it's not useful, then let's not include it.

On Fri, Sep 26, 2008 at 1:33 PM, Eric Chatonet
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Bonsoir à tous,
>
> I would not like to be considered as the ugly duckling but ;-)
> Chipp, Richard and all:
> Would you use (e.g. have a need for) such a function in your 'real'
> projects?
> As for me my answer is no even if I understand well the challenge it meant
> ;-)
___
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: the visible of a stack

[Richard Gaskin]

Eric Chatonet wrote:

I would not like to be considered as the ugly duckling but ;-)
Chipp, Richard and all:
Would you use (e.g. have a need for) such a function in your 'real'  
projects?
As for me my answer is no even if I understand well the challenge it  
meant ;-)


That's a helpful point.  There are many valuable handlers, but the 
purpose of stdLib.rev is to provide convenient access to the most 
commonly-used ones.


I just posted a note to the working group at RIP to get their opinions 
on whether it would be commonly used enough to make a good fit there.



Thanks for your input on that.

--
 Richard Gaskin
 Managing Editor, revJournal
 ___
 Rev tips, tutorials and more: http://www.revJournal.com
___
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: the visible of a stack

[Eric Chatonet]

Bonsoir à tous,

I would not like to be considered as the ugly duckling but ;-)
Chipp, Richard and all:
Would you use (e.g. have a need for) such a function in your 'real'  
projects?
As for me my answer is no even if I understand well the challenge it  
meant ;-)


Le 26 sept. 08 à 20:16, Chipp Walters a écrit :


Certainly!

On Fri, Sep 26, 2008 at 9:59 AM, Richard Gaskin
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote:




Chipp, mind if we add it?  With credit, of course.


Best regards from Paris,
Eric Chatonet.

Plugins and tutorials for Revolution: http://www.sosmartsoftware.com/
Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]/



___
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: the visible of a stack

[Chipp Walters]

Certainly!

On Fri, Sep 26, 2008 at 9:59 AM, Richard Gaskin
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote:

>
>
> Chipp, mind if we add it?  With credit, of course.
___
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: the visible of a stack

[Richard Gaskin]

Mikey wrote:

Umm, what standard library?


It's one of the initiatives of the Rev Interoperability Project (RIP).

Back at the second-ever RevCon, held at a nice B&B in Monterrey, the 
attendees were discussing common handlers and found many of us had 
worked out the same solutions for ourselves for the same common tasks.


To minimize such duplication of effort for the future, Andre proposed 
that we might create a sort of StdLib for Rev as there is for C, a 
common library free for anyone to use which would hopefully save us all 
a little more time by providing some the more common handlers we use day 
to day.


Some time passed before it transformed from an idea into a library, but 
 this last winter Ken Ray and I were talking about our own respective 
libraries and found a lot of overlap.  A lot.  So we committed to 
collating some of those into a StdLib.rev, which premiered at the '08 
RevCon in Vegas.


We've posted it for review, comment, and additions, and it's been 
growing a bit since.


You can download it in the Files section of the RIP group:


--
 Richard Gaskin
 Managing Editor, revJournal
 ___
 Rev tips, tutorials and more: http://www.revJournal.com
___
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: the visible of a stack

[Mikey]

Umm, what standard library?

Teh n00b
___
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: the visible of a stack

[Richard Gaskin]

Robert Brenstein wrote:


On 25/09/08 at 13:15 -0700 Dick Kriesel apparently wrote:

Hi, Chipp.  Here's a version that's effectively the same but that has a
couple minor advantages.  First, it has a single exit point, possibly
improving maintainability.  Second, it executes the corner functions only
once no matter how many screens there are, possibly improving performance.

-- Dick


function isStackCurrentlyVisibleOnAnyMonitor pStack
--> pStack IS THE SHORT NAME OF STACK
put "false" into tResult
if pStack is among the lines of windows() then
if the visible of stack pStack then
if the blendlevel of stack pStack < 100 then
put the topleft of stack pStack into tTopLeft
put the topright of stack pStack into tTopRight
put the bottomleft of stack pStack into tBottomLeft
put the bottomright of stack pStack into tBottomRight
repeat for each line tScreenRect in the screenrects
if tTopLeft is within tScreenRect or \
tTopRight is within tScreenRect or \
tBottomLeft is within tScreenRect or \
tBottomRight is within tScreenRect then
put "true" into tResult
exit repeat
end if
end repeat
end if
end if
end if
return tResult
end isStackCurrentlyVisibleOnAnyMonitor





Would this be a candidate for inclusion in the StandardLib?


I think that's an excellent suggestion.

Chipp, mind if we add it?  With credit, of course.

--
 Richard Gaskin
 Managing Editor, revJournal
 ___
 Rev tips, tutorials and more: http://www.revJournal.com
___
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

the visible of a stack

[Richmond Mathewson]

Script in a button in a visible substack:

on mouseUp
  put item 3 of the screenRect into WID
  put item 4 of the screenRect into HIT
  if the loc of stack "Visibubble" is within 0,0,WID,HIT then
put "I can see you!" into fld "f1"
if the vis of stack "Visibubble" is false then
put "I cannae see you!" into fld "f1"
end if
  else
put "I cannae see you!" into fld "f1"
end if
end mouseUp

sincerely, Richmond Mathewson


A Thorn in the flesh is better than a failed Systems Development Life Cycle.




___
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: the visible of a stack

[Chipp Walters]

Hi Dick,
I assume you benchmarked your function to see if it's faster. I'm not a big
fan of huge nested if then loops, as I find them more difficult to debug--
and I generally think they are slower. I suppose yours is offset by the
single exit point. But, my gut would tell me my function would run plenty
fast for most applications. I agree, there's no need to calculate the
corners for each display. Thanks for taking a look :-)



On Thu, Sep 25, 2008 at 3:15 PM, Dick Kriesel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> Hi, Chipp.  Here's a version that's effectively the same but that has a
> couple minor advantages.
___
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: the visible of a stack

[Robert Brenstein]

On 25/09/08 at 13:15 -0700 Dick Kriesel apparently wrote:

Hi, Chipp.  Here's a version that's effectively the same but that has a
couple minor advantages.  First, it has a single exit point, possibly
improving maintainability.  Second, it executes the corner functions only
once no matter how many screens there are, possibly improving performance.

-- Dick


function isStackCurrentlyVisibleOnAnyMonitor pStack
--> pStack IS THE SHORT NAME OF STACK
put "false" into tResult
if pStack is among the lines of windows() then
if the visible of stack pStack then
if the blendlevel of stack pStack < 100 then
put the topleft of stack pStack into tTopLeft
put the topright of stack pStack into tTopRight
put the bottomleft of stack pStack into tBottomLeft
put the bottomright of stack pStack into tBottomRight
repeat for each line tScreenRect in the screenrects
if tTopLeft is within tScreenRect or \
tTopRight is within tScreenRect or \
tBottomLeft is within tScreenRect or \
tBottomRight is within tScreenRect then
put "true" into tResult
exit repeat
end if
end repeat
end if
end if
end if
return tResult
end isStackCurrentlyVisibleOnAnyMonitor





Would this be a candidate for inclusion in the StandardLib?

Robert
___
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: the visible of a stack

[Dick Kriesel]

Hi, Chipp.  Here's a version that's effectively the same but that has a
couple minor advantages.  First, it has a single exit point, possibly
improving maintainability.  Second, it executes the corner functions only
once no matter how many screens there are, possibly improving performance.

-- Dick


function isStackCurrentlyVisibleOnAnyMonitor pStack
--> pStack IS THE SHORT NAME OF STACK
put "false" into tResult
if pStack is among the lines of windows() then
if the visible of stack pStack then
if the blendlevel of stack pStack < 100 then
put the topleft of stack pStack into tTopLeft
put the topright of stack pStack into tTopRight
put the bottomleft of stack pStack into tBottomLeft
put the bottomright of stack pStack into tBottomRight
repeat for each line tScreenRect in the screenrects
if tTopLeft is within tScreenRect or \
tTopRight is within tScreenRect or \
tBottomLeft is within tScreenRect or \
tBottomRight is within tScreenRect then
put "true" into tResult
exit repeat
end if
end repeat
end if
end if
end if
return tResult
end isStackCurrentlyVisibleOnAnyMonitor




On 9/25/08 12:46 PM, "Chipp Walters" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> function isStackCurrentlyVisibleOnAnyMonitor pStack
>  --> pStack IS THE SHORT NAME OF STACK
>  if pStack is among the lines of windows() then
>if not the vis of stack pStack then return false
>if the blendlevel of stack pStack = 100 then return false
>repeat for each line L in the screenrects
>   if the topLeft of stack pStack is within L then return true
>   if the topRight of stack pStack is within L then return true
>   if the bottomLeft of stack pStack is within L then return true
>   if the bottomRight of stack pStack is within L then return true
>end repeat
>return false
>  else
>return false
>  end if
> end isStackCurrentlyVisibleOnAnyMonitor


___
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: the visible of a stack

[Chipp Walters]

Devin,

Yes, you are correct. Here's the latest:

function isStackCurrentlyVisibleOnAnyMonitor pStack
 --> pStack IS THE SHORT NAME OF STACK
 if pStack is among the lines of windows() then
   if not the vis of stack pStack then return false
   if the blendlevel of stack pStack = 100 then return false
   repeat for each line L in the screenrects
  if the topLeft of stack pStack is within L then return true
  if the topRight of stack pStack is within L then return true
  if the bottomLeft of stack pStack is within L then return true
  if the bottomRight of stack pStack is within L then return true
   end repeat
   return false
 else
   return false
 end if
end isStackCurrentlyVisibleOnAnyMonitor

On Thu, Sep 25, 2008 at 10:57 AM, Devin Asay <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> Isn't the 'set wholematches to true' statement redundant in this case? I
> thought that the 'among the x of' operator implied that the thing being
> looked for is an exact match of the chunk type in the container being
> searched. If my understanding is wrong I'd like to know.
>
___
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: the visible of a stack

[Mikey]

A big "Thank You" to everyone who jumped into this thread.  This has
been an excellent discussion, with excellent information and tips.
___
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: the visible of a stack

[Devin Asay]

On Sep 25, 2008, at 12:01 AM, Chipp Walters wrote:


Dick,
Nice find. For some reason I didn't get your email, but I do see it in
Andre's response... HMMM.

function isStackCurrentlyVisibleOnAnyMonitor pStack
--> pStack IS THE SHORT NAME OF STACK
set wholematches to true
if pStack is among the lines of windows() then



Isn't the 'set wholematches to true' statement redundant in this case?  
I thought that the 'among the x of' operator implied that the thing  
being looked for is an exact match of the chunk type in the container  
being searched. If my understanding is wrong I'd like to know.


Devin

Devin Asay
Humanities Technology and Research Support Center
Brigham Young University

___
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: the visible of a stack

[Chipp Walters]

Dick,
Nice find. For some reason I didn't get your email, but I do see it in
Andre's response... HMMM.

function isStackCurrentlyVisibleOnAnyMonitor pStack
 --> pStack IS THE SHORT NAME OF STACK
 set wholematches to true
 if pStack is among the lines of windows() then
if the blendlevel of stack pStack = 100 then return false
repeat for each line L in the screenrects
   if the topLeft of stack pStack is within L then return true
   if the topRight of stack pStack is within L then return true
   if the bottomLeft of stack pStack is within L then return true
   if the bottomRight of stack pStack is within L then return true
end repeat
return false
 else
return false
 end if
end isStackCurrentlyVisibleOnAnyMonitor
___
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: the visible of a stack

[Chipp Walters]

Andre,
Intersect only works with objects, and AFAIK there's no 'screen' object.
___
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: the visible of a stack

[Andre Garzia]

the trick is using intersect()

:D

On Thu, Sep 25, 2008 at 12:12 AM, Dick Kriesel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi, Chipp.  Either of the other two corners of the stack could be the only
> corner within a screenrect too.
>
> -- Dick
>
>
> On 9/24/08 6:01 PM, "Chipp Walters" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> Dangit, didn't get the L again..Sorry for the multiple posts .
>>
>> function isStackCurrentlyVisibleOnAnyMonitor pStack
>>  --> pStack IS THE SHORT NAME OF STACK
>>   set wholematches to true
>>   if pStack is among the lines of windows() then
>>  if not the vis of stack pStack then return false
>>  if the blendlevel of stack pStack = 100 then return false
>>  repeat for each line L in the screenrects
>> if the topLeft of stack pStack is within L then return true
>> if the bottomright of stack pStack is within L then return true
>>  end repeat
>>  return false
>>   else
>>  return false
>>   end if
>> end isStackCurrentlyVisibleOnAnyMonitor
>> ___
>> 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
>



-- 
http://www.andregarzia.com All We Do Is Code.
___
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: the visible of a stack

[Dick Kriesel]

Hi, Chipp.  Either of the other two corners of the stack could be the only
corner within a screenrect too.

-- Dick


On 9/24/08 6:01 PM, "Chipp Walters" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> Dangit, didn't get the L again..Sorry for the multiple posts .
> 
> function isStackCurrentlyVisibleOnAnyMonitor pStack
>  --> pStack IS THE SHORT NAME OF STACK
>   set wholematches to true
>   if pStack is among the lines of windows() then
>  if not the vis of stack pStack then return false
>  if the blendlevel of stack pStack = 100 then return false
>  repeat for each line L in the screenrects
> if the topLeft of stack pStack is within L then return true
> if the bottomright of stack pStack is within L then return true
>  end repeat
>  return false
>   else
>  return false
>   end if
> end isStackCurrentlyVisibleOnAnyMonitor
> ___
> 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

Re: the visible of a stack

[Chipp Walters]

Dangit, didn't get the L again..Sorry for the multiple posts .

function isStackCurrentlyVisibleOnAnyMonitor pStack
 --> pStack IS THE SHORT NAME OF STACK
  set wholematches to true
  if pStack is among the lines of windows() then
 if not the vis of stack pStack then return false
 if the blendlevel of stack pStack = 100 then return false
 repeat for each line L in the screenrects
if the topLeft of stack pStack is within L then return true
if the bottomright of stack pStack is within L then return true
 end repeat
 return false
  else
 return false
  end if
end isStackCurrentlyVisibleOnAnyMonitor
___
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: the visible of a stack

[Chipp Walters]

Hmmm. You wrote:
All stacks are included regardless of their visibility.

Is that true? If so, then my function needs to include the line:
if not the vis of stack pStack then return false

I've included it below.

function isStackCurrentlyVisibleOnAnyMonitor pStack
  --> pStack IS THE SHORT NAME OF STACK
  set wholematches to true
  if pStack is among the lines of windows() then
 if not the vis of stack pStack then return false
 if the blendlever of stack pStack = 100 then return false
 repeat for each line L in the screenrects
if the topLeft of stack pStack is within L then return true
if the bottomright of stack pStack is within L then return true
 end repeat
 return false
  else
 return false
  end if
end isStackCurrentlyVisibleOnAnyMonitor
___
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: the visible of a stack

[Richard Gaskin]

Chipp Walters wrote:
>
> Richard Gaskin wrote:
>>
>>  if "MyStack" is among the lines of windows() then
...
> OOPS, I do get something, but it's not documented in HELP. Thanks for
> this little jewel :-)

Your welcome, and thanks for noting the strange omission from the docs. 
 I thought it was there, but I just verified it's missing so I filed a 
bug report on it:




The notes I wrote there include a tip about popup menus that might be 
helpful; worth a quick skim if you ever find the first line of the list 
returned from windows() empty.


--
 Richard Gaskin
 Managing Editor, revJournal
 ___
 Rev tips, tutorials and more: http://www.revJournal.com
___
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: the visible of a stack

[Chipp Walters]

Typo.. blendlevel is spelled with an 'L' at the end.

function isStackCurrentlyVisibleOnAnyMonitor pStack
  --> pStack IS THE SHORT NAME OF STACK
  set wholematches to true
  if pStack is among the lines of windows() then
 if the blendlevel of stack pStack = 100 then return false
 repeat for each line L in the screenrects
if the topLeft of stack pStack is within L then return true
if the bottomright of stack pStack is within L then return true
 end repeat
 return false
  else
 return false
  end if
end isStackCurrentlyVisibleOnAnyMonitor
___
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: the visible of a stack

[Chipp Walters]

This one's better as it checks all the monitor screens (and has the
blendlevel fix)

function isStackCurrentlyVisibleOnAnyMonitor pStack
   --> pStack IS THE SHORT NAME OF STACK
   set wholematches to true
   if pStack is among the lines of windows() then
  if the blendlever of stack pStack = 100 then return false
  repeat for each line L in the screenrects
 if the topLeft of stack pStack is within L then return true
 if the bottomright of stack pStack is within L then return true
  end repeat
  return false
   else
  return false
   end if
end isStackCurrentlyVisibleOnAnyMonitor
___
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: the visible of a stack

[Chipp Walters]

Mikey,

Here's a function which might do what you want..course then it might
not either ;-)

function isStackCurrentlyVisibleOnMainMonitor pStack
   --> pStack IS THE SHORT NAME OF STACK
   set wholematches to true
   if pStack is among the lines of windows() then
  if the topLeft of stack pStack is within the screenrect then return true
  if the bottomright of stack pStack is within the screenrect then
return true
  if the blendlevel of stack pStack > 0 then return true
  return false
   else
  return false
   end if
end isStackCurrentlyVisibleOnMainMonitor
___
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: the visible of a stack

[Richard Gaskin]

Mikey wrote:
> VERY funny.  Did you poke a hole in your cheek with your tongue?

Yep, and damn, now every time I take a drink the water spills out of the 
side of my face like a dribble glass.  That'll teach me... :)



> I have a substack  -  "Preferences" that has settings for various
> things, along with numerous cards of HTML templates and CSS, so I can
> update the look and feel of my output without having to screw around
> with the code.
>
> So, I want to get all the HTML and CSS out for use in the reports I'm
> building.
>
> The other thread I started today (indirect addressing) was to try to
> avoid using the
> put field x of card y of stack "preferences" into somearray[a][b],
> because it quickly becomes wider than I want, since, as you can
> imagine, "x", "y" and the somearray[a][b] are longer than what is
> implied here.
...
> So, barring the ability to indirectly address the cards and the stack,
> I was going to try the old HC method of lock messages, lock screen,
> and iterating through the cards I want, which makes the code longer,
> but narrower.
>
> Richard?  Wake up Richard.

Sorry, I was testing so I'd stepped out of the room.

Unlike SC and HC, Rev is much more forgiving with object references 
comprised of combinations of variables and literals.


For example, in SC you could say:

  put the long id of btn 1 of cd 2 of stack "MyPrefs" into tBtn

...and that would work, but you couldn't do this:

  put the long id of cd 2 of stack "MyPrefs" into tCd
  put the long id of btn 1 of tCd into tBtn

...but in Rev you can. :)

I'm not sure why the compiler is so much friendlier to these sorts of 
mix-n-match operations, but I rarely come across any combination that 
doesn't work.


So in your case you could do something like this:

  put specialFoldePath("preferences") &"/MyPrefs.dat" into tStack
  if there is not a stack tStack then
  -- create one
  else
  -- do your thing:
  put the long id of cd 1 of stack tStack into tCd
  --
  put the uMyProp of tCd into tMyStuffA[a][b]
  put the uMyProp2 of tCd into tMyStuff[a][c]
  -- and so on...
  end if


If performance is absolutely critical, moving the stuff from props into 
an array will buy you a few millisecs over the long haul.  But accessing 
props directly is fast enough that you might find it even more 
convenient to just make accessors for your preference settings:


  SetPref "TemplateCSS", "some CSS stuff"
  put GetPref("TemplateCSS") into fld 1

  --
  -- SetPref
  -- Generic handler for setting a preference value
  --
  on SetPref pLabel, pValue
 put PrefsStack() into tStack
 set the pLabel of stack tStack to pValue
 save stack tStack
  end SetPref

  --
  -- GetPref
  -- Generic handler for obtaining a preference value
  --
  function GetPref pLabel
 return the pLabel of stack PrefsStack()
  end GetPref

  --
  -- PrefsStack
  -- Returns the full path to the prefs stack, creating
  -- one if it doesn't already exist so the path is always good.
  --
  function PrefsStack
put specialFoldePath("preferences") &"/MyPrefs.dat" \
   into tStack
if there is not a stack tStack then
  -- create if it doesn't already exist:
  create invisible stack
  set the filename of it to tStack
  save stack tStack
end if
--
return tStack
  end PrefsStack


If you had attended my session at RevCon in May we covered this sort of 
thing in detail. :)


More generalized variants of these handlers are being added to StdLib at 
the RevInterop site:



--
 Richard Gaskin
 Managing Editor, revJournal
 ___
 Rev tips, tutorials and more: http://www.revJournal.com
___
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: the visible of a stack

[Chipp Walters]

OOPS, I do get something, but it's not documented in HELP. Thanks for
this little jewel :-)

On Wed, Sep 24, 2008 at 6:43 PM, Chipp Walters <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 24, 2008 at 3:54 PM, Richard Gaskin
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>>  if "MyStack" is among the lines of windows() then
>
> Huh? I get nothing with that function. Is it one of your custom functions?
>
___
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: the visible of a stack

[Chipp Walters]

On Wed, Sep 24, 2008 at 3:54 PM, Richard Gaskin
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

>  if "MyStack" is among the lines of windows() then

Huh? I get nothing with that function. Is it one of your custom functions?
___
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: the visible of a stack

[J. Landman Gay]

Mikey wrote:

Eric,
Just in case this matters, the stack is a substack.  I open RR, and
open the mainstack.

RR is the only application running.

The stack isn't off-screen.  The loc is the first thing I checked for,
because I've had situations where stacks migrate to maxint,maxint that
I haven't figured out.  The msg seems to be the most frequent
offender.

The loc of the stack is where I would expect it to be.
The visible of the stack is true
I can't see the stack.


The visible property is persistent, like a stack's name, and the engine 
will return the correct value when you ask for it. But there is a 
difference between stack you "go" to and stacks that are loaded into RAM 
but not yet opened. This can happen a couple of different ways. A 
substack is loaded into memory at the same time the mainstack is, but 
the substack is not yet in the message path and is never "visibly" 
visible, even though its propert may be set to true. To actually display 
the substack on screen, you have to go there. As Richard pointed out, 
this is rarely necessary if all you want to do is work with a property 
or other content.


Another way that a stack can be loaded in memory but not quite "real" is 
if you retrieve a property or other data from a stack on disk, which 
isn't yet open; for example:


  get the short name of stack "/myFolder/mystack.rev"

This will cause the engine to load the stack into RAM (in order to check 
the property value) but not place it into the message path. Even if the 
stack's visible is true, you won't see it. It's sort of a ghost stack, 
though it does take up RAM and I often put in a line of script to delete 
it when I'm done accessing it.


--
Jacqueline Landman Gay | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
HyperActive Software   | http://www.hyperactivesw.com
___
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: the visible of a stack

[Mikey]

Richard,

VERY funny.  Did you poke a hole in your cheek with your tongue?

I have a substack  -  "Preferences" that has settings for various
things, along with numerous cards of HTML templates and CSS, so I can
update the look and feel of my output without having to screw around
with the code.

So, I want to get all the HTML and CSS out for use in the reports I'm building.

The other thread I started today (indirect addressing) was to try to
avoid using the
put field x of card y of stack "preferences" into somearray[a][b],
because it quickly becomes wider than I want, since, as you can
imagine, "x", "y" and the somearray[a][b] are longer than what is
implied here. This results in a line of code that is...extensive,
which makes my use of GLX2's margined comments less useful since they
no longer appear on the screen I'm using for the script editor (and in
the straight RR 3.0 script editor it's wy the hell out in TB2).

So, barring the ability to indirectly address the cards and the stack,
I was going to try the old HC method of lock messages, lock screen,
and iterating through the cards I want, which makes the code longer,
but narrower.


Richard?  Wake up Richard.
___
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: the visible of a stack

[Mikey]

The openStacks list might be a helpful workaround here, which gets me
the elegance I was looking for and the behavior of not altering the
visible.  Thanks.
___
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: the visible of a stack

[Eric Chatonet]

Mickey,

Le 24 sept. 08 à 22:41, Mikey a écrit :


Eric,
Fiddling around with this some more in 3.0:

1) Created a new stack "t1"
2) Created a new suubstack "t2"
3) put the visible of stack "t2"

true


Correct and you see it :-)


4) put the rect of stack "t2"
735,550


Loc I assume but I understand.


4) show stack "t2"

nothing happens


Actually, I understand:
In the meantime you have close stack t2.
When you write 'show stack t2', you just set its visible property to  
true (and it's true yet) but it's closed.

So you can't see anything.


5) set the visible of stack "t2" to false
6) set the visible of stack "t2" to true

nothing happens


For the same reasons: stack is closed.


7) put the visible of stack "t2"

true


Yes, its 'visible' property is true but the stack is closed.


8) toplevel stack "t2"

stack appears


Toplevel OPENS a stack in an editable window then it's of course  
showing.
All other experiments you made just test a property but don't 'go' to  
the stack.
As I said, visible property is related to an open stack, not a closed  
one.


Best regards from Paris,
Eric Chatonet.

Plugins and tutorials for Revolution: http://www.sosmartsoftware.com/
Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]/



___
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: the visible of a stack

[Scott Rossi]

Recently, Mikey wrote:

> Along those lines, in the sequence that I described earlier, trying to
> show the substack doesn't do anything, either.
> 
> I suppose that it would make sense that this series that I describe
> occurs on a closed stack.
> 
> Now to figure out if a stack is closed or not.  Looks like it's time
> to generate a custom property

Unless you "go" or "open" a stack, it will not be considered open and
running by the engine.  You cannot "show" a stack that is not open because
show/hide are just synonyms for the visible property.  This is why I
suggested using "go inv stack xyz" if you want to open a stack invisibly.
But as Richard explained, you can still set/get properties of non-open
substack as long as it is part of an open mainstack.

Hope this helps.

Regards,

Scott Rossi
Creative Director
Tactile Media, Multimedia & Design


___
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: the visible of a stack

[Richard Gaskin]

Mikey wrote:

This was an attempt to not address the objects directly since I was
trying to evaluate a way to make some code more elegant (IMHO) by
going to the stack directly and navigating through it.  Obviously this
isn't working the way I had hoped.


Let's take a look at that if you can spare a moment to describe what 
you're up to.  My hunch is that anything you can do by navigating to 
invisible stacks can also be done without having to navigate to them, 
possibly just as elegantly.  Maybe more so, depending on what's needed.


Whatcha workin' on there?

--
 Richard Gaskin
 Managing Editor, revJournal
 ___
 Rev tips, tutorials and more: http://www.revJournal.com
___
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: the visible of a stack

[Richard Gaskin]

Richmond Mathewson wrote:
> 4. put the vis of stack "POO"
>
> which yielded 'true' [obviously]
>
> although I could not see the stack.
>
> So I concluded, with my philosophical hat jammed well down over
> my eyes, that VIS has nothing to do with whether I can see the
> stack or not, but has something to do with one of the properties
> of an object.

While that hypothesis may be true, your testing may have been a bit lax. 
You performed the outside-the-monitor test well enough, but with my 
penchant for testing I also performed the following tests:


- Placed another window on top of the one in question

- Turned off the monitor

- Closed my eyes

- Stepped out of the room

In all cases the stack's visible property was unchanged, even when I 
could not see it.


Curious...

But seriously, Mikey, if you're still reading this silly post here's the 
skinny:


the visible property governs whether a stack will be seen when it's 
open, not whether it's open at the moment.  To see if a stack is open 
check the windows:



  if "MyStack" is among the lines of windows() then


--
 Richard Gaskin
 Managing Editor, revJournal
 ___
 Rev tips, tutorials and more: http://www.revJournal.com
___
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: the visible of a stack

[Scott Rossi]

Recently, Richmond Mathewson wrote:

> Unfortunately, while the VIS property exists in Runtime Revolution a
> CLOSED property does not, as far as I am aware.

No, but an openStacks property does, which lists all open stacks, regardless
of visibility.

Regards,

Scott Rossi
Creative Director
Tactile Media, Multimedia & Design


___
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: the visible of a stack

[Mikey]

Along those lines, in the sequence that I described earlier, trying to
show the substack doesn't do anything, either.

I suppose that it would make sense that this series that I describe
occurs on a closed stack.

Now to figure out if a stack is closed or not.  Looks like it's time
to generate a custom property
___
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

the visible of a stack

[Richmond Mathewson]

Check out "Visibility of substacks" at revOnline under "Richmond".

it does, indded, seem very odd that even when a substack is CLOSED one can set 
its VIS to TRUE or FALSE:

i.e. exactly what (I think) Mikey describes; a closed substack (which the human 
in front of the monitor cannot see) registering as VISIBLE.

Unfortunately, while the VIS property exists in Runtime Revolution a
CLOSED property does not, as far as I am aware.

sincerely, Richmond Mathewson.



A Thorn in the flesh is better than a failed Systems Development Life Cycle.




___
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: the visible of a stack

[Mikey]

Eric,
Fiddling around with this some more in 3.0:

1) Created a new stack "t1"
2) Created a new suubstack "t2"
3) put the visible of stack "t2"

true

4) put the rect of stack "t2"
735,550

4) show stack "t2"

nothing happens

5) set the visible of stack "t2" to false
6) set the visible of stack "t2" to true

nothing happens

7) put the visible of stack "t2"

true

8) toplevel stack "t2"

stack appears

>From this point forward the stack behaves as I would expect it to -
altering the visible property, hide and show all seem to operate
properly.

So besides when the mainstack is first opened, when would I expect all
of this to not behave as one might expect for a mainstack?
___
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: the visible of a stack

[Eric Chatonet]

Mickey,

Yes, the visible property of a closed substack is true:
I understand that might be confusing :-)
Actually, the visible property of any stack does not depend on the  
fact it is open or not.

It's a status that will be respected when the stack will be opened.
Of course, all this depends on your screen rect also: a stack may be  
'visible' but at -1000,-1000...


Le 24 sept. 08 à 22:18, Mikey a écrit :


Hi, Eric.

Yes, one would expect that.  However, the visible for the (unopened)
substack seems to be true in this case.

I didn't want to get off on this tangent, but showing hidden substacks
seems to a little odd as well, which might be a product of the visible
property not being what I expect, but I haven't spent an enormous
amount of time trying to work on that yet.


Best regards from Paris,
Eric Chatonet.

Plugins and tutorials for Revolution: http://www.sosmartsoftware.com/
Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]/



___
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: the visible of a stack

[Andre Garzia]

Mikey,

I got late to this thread so forgive me if I say something terribly
obvious, but you can check the visible of a stack and the result from
intersect() between it's rect and the screen rect to find if it is
visible and in-screen, then unless the blendlevel or the windowshape
is something really odd, you should have a visible stack.

or you can play pavlov and start blinking the stack while asking the
user: "hey user, do you see something blinking?" :-D

Andre

On Wed, Sep 24, 2008 at 5:18 PM, Mikey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi, Eric.
>
> Yes, one would expect that.  However, the visible for the (unopened)
> substack seems to be true in this case.
>
> I didn't want to get off on this tangent, but showing hidden substacks
> seems to a little odd as well, which might be a product of the visible
> property not being what I expect, but I haven't spent an enormous
> amount of time trying to work on that yet.
> ___
> 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
>



-- 
http://www.andregarzia.com All We Do Is Code.
___
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: the visible of a stack

[Mikey]

Richard,

As I mentioned to Eric, the loc of the (sub)stack is onscreen.  I've
verified that due to being bitten recently by some stacks (most often
the msg box, although sometimes the script editor) moving to
maxint,maxint (65535,65535), so whenever I have a window issue, I
first assume that the loc is wrong.  Not in this case, I'm afraid.
___
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: the visible of a stack

[Mikey]

Hi, Eric.

Yes, one would expect that.  However, the visible for the (unopened)
substack seems to be true in this case.

I didn't want to get off on this tangent, but showing hidden substacks
seems to a little odd as well, which might be a product of the visible
property not being what I expect, but I haven't spent an enormous
amount of time trying to work on that yet.
___
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: the visible of a stack

[Mikey]

Scptt.

I see that I forgot to mention in the first post that I was dealing
with a substack.  I mentioned it in another thread that I started on
indirect addressing, but none of you would know that the posts are
related.

I noticed that you made a comment that the visible of a substack might
not be what one might expect for a mainstack, which is what I feared
to begin with.  However, unless my dementia that I DID reference in my
first post on this topic is really, really bad, the dictionary doesn't
discuss this distinction.
___
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

the visible of a stack

[Richmond Mathewson]

May be I'm being a bit goofy, but I just made a stack called "POO" and put the 
following commands/messages into the message box:

1.  put the vis of stack "POO" 

which yielded 'true'

2. set the vis of stack "POO" to false

3. put the vis of stack "POO" 

   which yielded 'false'

4. set the vis of stack "POO" to true

which yielded 'true'

not strictly rocket science !

I then tried this:

5. move stack "POO" to -1000,-1000

and it sedately moved off-screen

4. put the vis of stack "POO"

which yielded 'true' [obviously]

although I could not see the stack.

So I concluded, with my philosophical hat jammed well down over my eyes,
that VIS has nothing to do with whether I can see the stack or not, but has 
something to do with one of the properties of an object.

Of course this confusion is one of the side-effects of using a programming 
language which resembles natural language in some respects. Had the language 
been written so that VIS referred to both the object's opacity being either 
100% or 0% and/or whether it was within a bounding rectangle (whether computer 
screen or containing object) that confusion would not have arisen, as that is 
closer to the way 'visible' is defined in the English language.

sincerely, Richmond Mathewson.



A Thorn in the flesh is better than a failed Systems Development Life Cycle.




___
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: the visible of a stack

[Eric Chatonet]

Mickey,

Le 24 sept. 08 à 22:06, Mikey a écrit :


Just in case this matters, the stack is a substack.  I open RR, and
open the mainstack.


Opening a mainstack don't open its substacks.
You have to open a substack to see it.

Best regards from Paris,
Eric Chatonet.

Plugins and tutorials for Revolution: http://www.sosmartsoftware.com/
Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]/



___
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: the visible of a stack

[Mikey]

Richard,

This was an attempt to not address the objects directly since I was
trying to evaluate a way to make some code more elegant (IMHO) by
going to the stack directly and navigating through it.  Obviously this
isn't working the way I had hoped.
___
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: the visible of a stack

[Mikey]

Tom,

Thanks for the suggestion.  I was going to try to derive something
like that, but I was hoping that I just didn't understand the visible
property and that the solution would be simpler.

It may be that there is still something else going on, but I haven't
figured it out yet.
___
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: the visible of a stack

[Richard Gaskin]

Mikey wrote:

I originally wanted to get the visible of the stack, navigate to the
stack to do something


That may not be necessary.  Unlike HyperCard, you can modify any 
property of any object in any stack at any time without having to "go" 
to it, or even open it per se.


Not sure if that helps what you want to do, but if you're dealing with 
visibility only to modify stuff in a stack, you don't need to.


--
 Richard Gaskin
 Managing Editor, revJournal
 ___
 Rev tips, tutorials and more: http://www.revJournal.com
___
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: the visible of a stack

[Mikey]

Eric,
Just in case this matters, the stack is a substack.  I open RR, and
open the mainstack.

RR is the only application running.

The stack isn't off-screen.  The loc is the first thing I checked for,
because I've had situations where stacks migrate to maxint,maxint that
I haven't figured out.  The msg seems to be the most frequent
offender.

The loc of the stack is where I would expect it to be.
The visible of the stack is true
I can't see the stack.
going to the stack shows it
setting the visible of the stack to false and then back to true does
not show it.
___
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: the visible of a stack

[Scott Rossi]

Recently, Mikey wrote:

> If a stack "x" is not visible on the screen, and I type
> put the visible of stack "x" I get true, even though the stack is
> obviously not visible.

I don't know if your stack is "obviously" not visible.  A substack can be
visible and not apparent on the screen because it's present in memory but
not open.  Unless this is your situation, I don't know what else to tell
you.  The visible property has been reliable for me.


> I originally wanted to get the visible of the stack, navigate to the
> stack to do something, then set the visible of the stack when I was
> done to the value before I showed up so that the user wouldn't have
> the stack do something odd when I was done.

I don't know the extent of your project here but you may need to define the
state of your stacks beyond just visibility, using custom properties or
similar.


> If the stack is invisible and I go to it, the stack becomes visible,
> which is a problem if it was invisible to begin with.

You can always use "go inv stack xyz" to open stack invisibly.

Regards,

Scott Rossi
Creative Director
Tactile Media, Multimedia & Design


___
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: the visible of a stack

[Thomas McGrath III]

Mikey,
In order for a stack to be other than visible you would have to set  
this, so why not set a flag that tells you before the stack is opened  
what it's state is? then call that state and reset based on that  
before you close the stack.



-- in an open statement

put the visible of stack "Test" into gVisState
set the visible of stack "Test" to true
-- work on stack 

-- in a close statement
switch gVisState
case "true"
set the visible of stack "Test" to true
break
case "false"
set the visible of stack "Test" to false
break
end switch

HTHs

Tom McGrath III

On Sep 24, 2008, at 3:46 PM, Mikey wrote:


It's not that I want to make a stack visible or invisible.  I'd like
to prevent that property from changing when I'm done with a stack.

So if I visit a stack, but that stack isn't visible when I get there,
then I'd like it to remain invisible.  Conversely, if it was visible,
I'd like to have it remain visible if it was when I got there.

However, I don't know what property reliably indicates the visually
visible status of a stack, since visible does not, apparently.
___
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

Re: the visible of a stack

[Eric Chatonet]

Mickey,

Fortunately and as Scott pointed it out, the visible status of a  
stack is completely reliable as soon as you have understood what  
Scott and me tried to tell you :-)
I take the opportunity, and this is not the first time :-) to tell  
how it's important to dig in before maintaining that this or that is  
not reliable, is a bug and so on...
Obviously you stack is just off-screen but its visible is true and if  
you had a 200 inches monitor, may be you would see it ;-)

Good luck!

Le 24 sept. 08 à 21:46, Mikey a écrit :


However, I don't know what property reliably indicates the visually
visible status of a stack, since visible does not, apparently.


Best regards from Paris,
Eric Chatonet.

Plugins and tutorials for Revolution: http://www.sosmartsoftware.com/
Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]/



___
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: the visible of a stack

[Mikey]

Scott,

If a stack "x" is not visible on the screen, and I type
put the visible of stack "x" I get true, even though the stack is
obviously not visible.

I originally wanted to get the visible of the stack, navigate to the
stack to do something, then set the visible of the stack when I was
done to the value before I showed up so that the user wouldn't have
the stack do something odd when I was done.

If the stack is invisible and I go to it, the stack becomes visible,
which is a problem if it was invisible to begin with.

As you have probably figured out, this has nothing to do with lock
screen, by the way.
___
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: the visible of a stack

[Mikey]

It's not that I want to make a stack visible or invisible.  I'd like
to prevent that property from changing when I'm done with a stack.

So if I visit a stack, but that stack isn't visible when I get there,
then I'd like it to remain invisible.  Conversely, if it was visible,
I'd like to have it remain visible if it was when I got there.

However, I don't know what property reliably indicates the visually
visible status of a stack, since visible does not, apparently.
___
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: the visible of a stack

[Scott Rossi]

Recently, Mikey wrote:

> I have a stack that isn't visible - at least not in a visual sense.
> 
> However if I put the visible of the stack, I get true.
> 
> If I toplevel the stack and set the visible to false, nothing seems to happen.
> 
> So, aside from my obvious dementia, does this behavior make any sense?
> 
> Is there some way to tell reliably whether a stack is visually visible or not?

How can a stack be invisible in anything BUT a visual sense? ;-)

Several ways a stack could be visible but not apparent on the screen are A)
the stack is off screen, B) the blendLevel of the stack is set to 100, C)
the dimensions of the stack are set to some tiny values like 1 x 1, D) the
stack is hidden behind another stack, or E) an incorrect image used as a
custom windowshape.

I've found the visible property to be reliable.

Regards,

Scott Rossi
Creative Director
Tactile Media, Multimedia & Design


___
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: the visible of a stack

[Eric Chatonet]

Bonsoir Mickey,

As far as I can tell, there is a way to make any object invisible  
when it's visible property is true:
Letting apart that it can be off-screen (in this case, it is obvious)  
you just need to set its rect appropriately.

For instance:
set the rect of  to 200,200,100,100

So you might want to test the rect and location of your stack using  
application browser.


Le 24 sept. 08 à 21:05, Mikey a écrit :


I have a stack that isn't visible - at least not in a visual sense.

However if I put the visible of the stack, I get true.

If I toplevel the stack and set the visible to false, nothing seems  
to happen.


So, aside from my obvious dementia, does this behavior make any sense?

Is there some way to tell reliably whether a stack is visually  
visible or not?


Best regards from Paris,
Eric Chatonet.

Plugins and tutorials for Revolution: http://www.sosmartsoftware.com/
Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]/



___
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

the visible of a stack

[Mikey]

Hmm.

I have a stack that isn't visible - at least not in a visual sense.

However if I put the visible of the stack, I get true.

If I toplevel the stack and set the visible to false, nothing seems to happen.

So, aside from my obvious dementia, does this behavior make any sense?

Is there some way to tell reliably whether a stack is visually visible or not?
___
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