> On 25 May 2016, at 8:54 AM, Mark Wieder <mwie...@ahsoftware.net> wrote: > > Now... since this process is (or at least has been) fairly transparent to the > end user (does anyone actually rely on a brush of 8 being image id 108?) I'd > rather do one of two things (or both): > > 1. assign the brush to the actual image id instead of the index > 2. reassign ids to the brush images so that the correspond and no mapping is > involved. > > Would this break anything that anybody relies on? Does anyone use the actual > brush image ids? Or care what the actual brush *numbers* are?
Just having it work as documented is all I’m after at the moment. Changing the behavior completely probably needs more time to consider ramifications than we can assign to it. In fact I’ve already put in more time on this than I should have I think! I’ll put in some extra hours this week to make up for it. Actually I’m not meant to be working now so it’s all good ;-) Cheers Monte _______________________________________________ use-livecode mailing list use-livecode@lists.runrev.com Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription preferences: http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode
