On Wed, 23 Oct 2002 16:00:24 -0500, Howdy-Tzi [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wednesday, October 23, 2002, at 03:10 PM, Kurt Griffin wrote:
Brennan has been after this kind of thing at a more meta level for a
while -
the ability to script Director. If we could script Director, you could
So, in case it is not obvious, the thing is for as many of us as
possible to 'wish' for this using the ritual which has become sacred
to our brotherhood. (And sisterhood). The incantation for this
particular magickal rite is;
On Thu, 24 Oct 2002 13:58:08 +0200, Andreas Gaunitz P11 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
So, in case it is not obvious, the thing is for as many of us as
possible to 'wish' for this using the ritual which has become sacred
to our brotherhood. (And sisterhood). The incantation for this
particular
- Original Message -
From: Rob Romanek [EMAIL PROTECTED]
a) is no problem, just click on the internal cast to make it the active
window, then use the Property Inspector to change the name.
D'oh! Why did I think that couldn't be done? I'm certain I must have tried
it before sometime...
At 12:46 PM +0100 10/23/02, you wrote:
- Original Message -
From: Rob Romanek [EMAIL PROTECTED]
a) is no problem, just click on the internal cast to make it the active
window, then use the Property Inspector to change the name.
D'oh! Why did I think that couldn't be done? I'm
On Tue, 22 Oct 2002 09:52:18 -0700, Buzz Kettles [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
don't hold your breath on it getting removed
I wouldn't bother with wishlist - there's no way your request would
get addressed.
Buzz, this strikes me as rather gloomy, especially coming from an ex-Macromedia guy.
I
On Wednesday, October 23, 2002, at 01:12 PM, Brennan wrote:
On Tue, 22 Oct 2002 09:52:18 -0700, Buzz Kettles [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
don't hold your breath on it getting removed
I wouldn't bother with wishlist - there's no way your request would
get addressed.
Buzz, this strikes me as
- Original Message -
From: Brennan [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Tue, 22 Oct 2002 09:52:18 -0700, Buzz Kettles [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
don't hold your breath on it getting removed
I wouldn't bother with wishlist - there's no way your request would
get addressed.
Buzz, this strikes me
- Original Message -
From: Buzz Kettles [EMAIL PROTECTED]
why didn't you notice it when I mentioned it early yesterday ;)
'Cos someone (i.e., you) decided to top and bottom post in the same message
;-) Actually, I just noticed because you mentioned it. At the time I assumed
your top
- Original Message -
From: Howdy-Tzi [EMAIL PROTECTED]
There are fundamental realities about the Director architecture, and
the internal cast is one of them. I think what Buzz is indicating is
that it would essentially require a top-down rewrite of the entire
Director engine -- while
On Wednesday, October 23, 2002, at 01:59 PM, Robert Tweed wrote:
- Original Message -
From: Howdy-Tzi [EMAIL PROTECTED]
There are fundamental realities about the Director architecture, and
the internal cast is one of them. I think what Buzz is indicating is
that it would essentially
a) is no problem, just click on the internal cast to make it the active
window, then use the Property Inspector to change the name.
D'oh! Why did I think that couldn't be done? I'm certain I must have tried
it before sometime...
Something else that might be useful is if you could reorder
On Wednesday, October 23, 2002, at 03:10 PM, Kurt Griffin wrote:
Brennan has been after this kind of thing at a more meta level for a
while -
the ability to script Director. If we could script Director, you could
run a
script on startmovie that would check to see if the activeCastLib
(already
- Original Message -
From: Howdy-Tzi [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On what do you base that assessment?
Well, there are no dependencies on casts, as such, as far as I am aware.
There may be dependencies on members, and there needs to be a default cast
(which is the current active cast, not
At 8:12 PM +0200 10/23/02, you wrote:
On Tue, 22 Oct 2002 09:52:18 -0700, Buzz Kettles [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
don't hold your breath on it getting removed
I wouldn't bother with wishlist - there's no way your request would
get addressed.
Buzz, this strikes me as rather gloomy,
At 11:12 AM 10/23/2, Brennan wrote:
If macromedia really are ignoring requests and the wishlist,
we ought to organize to let the management know our dissatisfaction.
We've already seen some kind of response to complaints about
poor developer support.
I'm not Buzz either, but I read it as Rob
On Wednesday, October 23, 2002, at 04:56 PM, Robert Tweed wrote:
- Original Message -
From: Howdy-Tzi [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On what do you base that assessment?
Well, there are no dependencies on casts, as such, as far as I am
aware.
I think I see what you're saying here; however I
At 7:59 PM +0100 10/23/02, you wrote:
- Original Message -
From: Howdy-Tzi [EMAIL PROTECTED]
There are fundamental realities about the Director architecture, and
the internal cast is one of them. I think what Buzz is indicating is
that it would essentially require a top-down rewrite
- Original Message -
From: Howdy-Tzi [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Well, there are no dependencies on casts, as such, as far as I am
aware.
I think I see what you're saying here; however I believe it's fair to
see Director as needing at least one cast in much the same way as it
needs a stage
On Wednesday, October 23, 2002, at 06:33 PM, Robert Tweed wrote:
That's fine. I never suggested that a movie should have no casts,
My misunderstanding then.
just that
there should be the option to delete the Internal cast after at least
one
other cast has been added.
Or, barring that, to
Just a small thing that has been annoying me. I've recently started breaking
all my code up into libraries (esp. the openLingo library) and putting them
in linked casts. It also occured to me that to make LDM's work usefully, I
should put *everything* in external casts, so the same code and assets
I'm not aware of a way to get rid of it, and it'd probably break the engine
if you did.
At 07:09 AM 10/22/02, Robert Tweed wrote:
Just a small thing that has been annoying me. I've recently started breaking
all my code up into libraries (esp. the openLingo library) and putting them
in linked
- Original Message -
From: Tab Julius [EMAIL PROTECTED]
I'm not aware of a way to get rid of it, and it'd probably break the
engine
if you did.
Well, there shouln't be any physical ties to Internal, specifically, so
there should not be any reason to remove it other than an oversight in
don't hold your breath on it getting removed
At 12:09 PM +0100 10/22/02, you wrote:
Just a small thing that has been annoying me. I've recently started breaking
all my code up into libraries (esp. the openLingo library) and putting them
in linked casts. It also occured to me that to make LDM's
For anyone else working with LDM's I'll just add that the nice thing
about having the LDM code in an external library is that during
development you can link your parent movie to the same library and edit
the LDM code, hit recompile, you don't even have to save, and see the
effects of your
- Original Message -
From: Rob Romanek [EMAIL PROTECTED]
As far a ditching the internal library, I find it extremely useful
especially with LDMs. I keep the internal library exclusively for
creating temporary cast members on the fly.
That's a good point: I do that too, but
26 matches
Mail list logo
