François-
Monday, December 8, 2008, 12:07:35 PM, you wrote:
> that's a big "if". I assume that the purpose of an object's ID is to
> be unique. This cannot be verified by a single user, IMHO. The closest
To add to what Bjornke posted, if I delete a button and then want to
recreate it (as in a ve
Actually it is possible to have the same ID for various objects, as
long as they're not in the same stack (no matter what card). You can
test this easily yourself, as there is an object type that you can set
the id for: images
Theoretically this allows to override (to use a c++ term) icons,
Le 8 déc. 08 à 19:25, Mark Wieder a écrit :
François-
Monday, December 8, 2008, 9:17:17 AM, you wrote:
cannot be a property of the control. On the practical side, if you
duplicate a control *including* the ID, you will end with two
controls
having the same ID, which is a no-no. This ID st
François-
Monday, December 8, 2008, 9:17:17 AM, you wrote:
> cannot be a property of the control. On the practical side, if you
> duplicate a control *including* the ID, you will end with two controls
> having the same ID, which is a no-no. This ID stuff has to be managed
> by the engine.
Right,
Le 8 déc. 08 à 17:52, Mark Wieder a écrit :
Chipp-
Sunday, December 7, 2008, 3:10:13 PM, you wrote:
Awhile back, I wrote a library which enabled the sharing of rev
controls from one stack to another over the internet. I sent controls
back and forth using the properties function wrapped in XM
Chipp-
Sunday, December 7, 2008, 3:10:13 PM, you wrote:
> Awhile back, I wrote a library which enabled the sharing of rev
> controls from one stack to another over the internet. I sent controls
> back and forth using the properties function wrapped in XML, and then
> after 're-making' a control,
Hi Björnke,
Awhile back, I wrote a library which enabled the sharing of rev
controls from one stack to another over the internet. I sent controls
back and forth using the properties function wrapped in XML, and then
after 're-making' a control, I compared checksums of the new control
with the orig
Hi Chipp
That's funny, for what Object type did you need it? I do get all your
examples for a field respectively for a button ("htmltext" and "armed"
do not exist in every object)? I used this to look them up:
put the properties of the mousecontrol into x; put the keys of x into
x; sort x
Chipp Walters wrote:
I did a project awhile ago and also found these properties of an
object were also not stored when using "the properties" of an object:
"id"
"visited"
"layer"
"armed"
"htmlText"
I'll add these to Björnke bug report.
Good catch. Thanks for adding those.
--
Richard Gaski
I did a project awhile ago and also found these properties of an
object were also not stored when using "the properties" of an object:
"id"
"visited"
"layer"
"armed"
"htmlText"
I'll add these to Björnke bug report.
___
use-revolution mailing list
use-re
Björnke wrote:
I made an enhancement request:
http://quality.runrev.com/qacenter/show_bug.cgi?id=7518
I also filed a docu bug, as the dictionary is wrong about what "the
properties" will return:
http://quality.runrev.com/qacenter/show_bug.cgi?id=7519
Thank you.
It's my understanding that
I made an enhancement request:
http://quality.runrev.com/qacenter/show_bug.cgi?id=7518
I also filed a docu bug, as the dictionary is wrong about what "the
properties" will return:
http://quality.runrev.com/qacenter/show_bug.cgi?id=7519
Björnke
On 5 Dec 2008, at 15:25, Thomas McGrath III wro
I think you should file an Enhancement Request for this. I would if I
had the time. This is the second gotcha I hit since I started this
project.
I think the thing that hit me on this was the antialiased property. So
maybe a custom function might do the trick.
Tom McGrath III
Lazy River
On 5 Dec 2008, at 06:09, Richard Gaskin wrote:
Thomas McGrath wrote:
Mark, Yes except that the properties does not store ALL of the
possible properties of an object. So it is not a perfect match to
the original object.
I believe "the properties" contains all modiable properties of an
Thomas McGrath wrote:
Mark, Yes except that the properties does not store ALL of the
possible properties of an object. So it is not a perfect match to the
original object.
I believe "the properties" contains all modiable properties of an
object, so that if you apply that to the template o
Mark, Yes except that the properties does not store ALL of the
possible properties of an object. So it is not a perfect match to the
original object. I actually started with the properties first and then
started looking for other ways that might be better and include ALL of
the possible pro
Scott, thanks. seems a little complicated because I wanted to do this
with dozens of objects. So this would mean dozens of stacks. For my
needs I think it might be better to store them all in one separate
stack.
Tom McGrath III
Lazy River Software
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
iTunes Library Suite - l
Hi Tom,
The docs entry for the properties property might give you an idea of
how to do this, in particular the syntax description "set the
properties of object to propertiesArray".
--
Best regards,
Mark Schonewille
Economy-x-Talk Consulting and Software Engineering
http://economy-x-talk.c
Recently, Thomas McGrath III wrote:
> Is there a way to store an object in a variable? I want to store a
> polygon or graphic in a variable or a custom property.
I don't believe you can't store the object itself, but you can store the
properties of the object and create it on the fly by setting t
Is there a way to store an object in a variable? I want to store a
polygon or graphic in a variable or a custom property.
Thanks
Tom McGrath III
Lazy River Software
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
iTunes Library Suite - libITS
Information and download can be found on this page:
http://www.lazyriversoftwa
20 matches
Mail list logo
