On Apr 1, 2011, at 2:37 PM, Bob Sneidar wrote:
Okay sorry dislexia has set it. I saw 1022 and it looked like 1002.
I looked at it 20 times and saw them as identical. I am so
embarrassed.
Bob
I make stupid mistakes all the time, especially when I've just hit the
send button. :-)
As I get
Breathe into the pain. Chant to yourself, "This humiliation is making me a
better person."
It doesn't, really, but the procedure is a good distraction until you forget
about it.
Tim
On Apr 1, 2011, at 11:37 AM, Bob Sneidar wrote:
> Okay sorry dislexia has set it. I saw 1022 and it looked like
Okay sorry dislexia has set it. I saw 1022 and it looked like 1002. I looked at
it 20 times and saw them as identical. I am so embarrassed.
Bob
On Apr 1, 2011, at 11:15 AM, Timothy Miller wrote:
> Hey Bob,
>
> This still sounds wrong. "The ID of this card" should be the same, regardless
> o
Hey Bob,
This still sounds wrong. "The ID of this card" should be the same, regardless
of the object containing the script that retrieves it. I'm not aware that
lockMessages or lockScreen would have any effect on getting the ID of this card.
The problem more likely lies with "this card". If som
I think the difference may have been that my button was part of a background
group. Also, I locked the screen but did not lock messages. Not sure if that
had anything to do with it. Also, I did not go to a card number. I used go
next.
Bob
On Apr 1, 2011, at 10:38 AM, Jim Ault wrote:
>> On M
Yes, but I was not getting the ID of the group, but the ID of "this" card (note
currentCard is now obsolete). What is odd is that the ID of "this card" is 1002
no matter which card you are on, (given it still exists otherwise it would be
the ID of first card of the stack) and the name of "this c
On Apr 1, 2011, at 9:43 AM, Bob Sneidar wrote:
Yes I did figure it out. I was getting the ID of this card, which
always seems to refer to the first card that the group the button
belonged to was placed on, hence always getting 1002 for the ID.
Getting the name seems to do the same thing. Bu
Yes I did figure it out. I was getting the ID of this card, which always seems
to refer to the first card that the group the button belonged to was placed on,
hence always getting 1002 for the ID. Getting the name seems to do the same
thing. But getting the NUMBER returns the correct result. As
Bob's experience, quoted below, seems odd. I don't think this is normal LC
behavior. Something has gone wrong, it seems. I might have missed a reply to
Bob that explains it, but I didn't see one.
Did you ever figure it out, Bob?
on mouseUp
push card
set lockscreen to "true"
set lockme
On Mar 31, 2011, at 4:57 PM, Peter Brigham MD wrote:
Cycling through the cards by reference is fast ('set the hilite of
btn "barked" of marked card n to false') -- always, always, always
avoid things like "go card n" within a loop, since that takes lots
of time.
After the list of card i
"mark cards where..." is very fast and very flexible. Using a
(possibly hidden) checkbox button should be quite feasible even with
lots of cards. To "unbark all" you can loop through all the cards and
set the hilite of the button to false -- be sure not to *go* to the
cards, just loop throu
, 2011 1:18 pm
Subject: novice question re "marked" and customkeys
Hey dudes,
The "marked" property is so easy to use. "go next marked" and "unmark all
cards"
are so fast and foolproof! Very handy.
I'm wondering if I can somehow define my own versions
I think Mike's solution is the best. I didn't know you could mark cards in
the way he suggested - doesn't seem much point in rolling your own when LC
can do it for you. I guess the performance thing could be an issue if you
can't use a custom property and there's a large number of cards.
Pete
On
Never mind I can use the number of this card. Apparently the ID returns the ID
of the first card the group was placed on. The number returns the actual number
of the card being shown!! As an aside, the name also returns the name of the
first card of the group.
May I say that this behavior is r
A big thankya goes out to Peter, Mike, Bob and Peter. Good ideas all.
Tim
On Mar 31, 2011, at 10:49 AM, Peter Brigham MD wrote:
> I suspect that using a customproperty of the card would be faster for large
> numbers of cards. Accessing the contents of a field is slow, relative to
> pulling cu
Aye, but of course if you have that many cards you should probably be doing
this through SQL.
Bob
On Mar 31, 2011, at 10:49 AM, Peter Brigham MD wrote:
> I suspect that using a customproperty of the card would be faster for large
> numbers of cards. Accessing the contents of a field is slow,
Okay I was going to make a demo stack of how to do this, but I have run across
a problem someone was talking about earlier and I didn't get it then but I sure
do now!
In a button as part of a background group on a card I have:
On mouseUp
put the id of this card into theFirstCard
go next
I suspect that using a customproperty of the card would be faster for
large numbers of cards. Accessing the contents of a field is slow,
relative to pulling customprops. But it probably doesn't matter unless
you have >1000 cards.
-- Peter
Peter M. Brigham
pmb...@gmail.com
http://home.comca
You could come at this from a different direction. Since you can mark
conditionally, you can set a property (or global, or have a hidden checkbox,
or whatever) and then change your marks on the fly based on that.
IE, if you have a "darked" hidden checkbox on your cards and need to loop
through you
One possibility would be to maintain a list of the "barked" cards somewhere,
maybe in a custom property of your main stack. You could do that with a
setProp handler for "barked" that added the card ID to the master list if the
property was set to true and removed it if it was set to false (assu
I think you are right Mark. A hidden field with the word "barked" or "darked"
in it and some use of the find command would serve you better. Undarking all
cards though would definitely require a repeat loop or a recursive call, with
Exit to top when you cannot find any more.
Bob
On Mar 31, 2
Hey dudes,
The "marked" property is so easy to use. "go next marked" and "unmark all
cards" are so fast and foolproof! Very handy.
I'm wondering if I can somehow define my own versions of "marked"
E.g., in a hypothetical stack, the "marked" of cards 3, 10, 22 and 99 is "true"
I somehow define
22 matches
Mail list logo
