Seems to me that if the current restriction on the result of “clone” is intended to prevent possible problems when tools palette is being used then a very bad design decision was made. A solution should not affect what happens when the user clones an abject that is already in the stack.
The script function “clone” should clone the object _exactly_ when used by itself, but could be used in conjunction with size-dectecting code for the palette. Michael BNig wrote: that is determined somewhat arbitrarily by the revBackScriptLibrary in handler on newGraphic if the width of the target < 9 and the height of the target < 9 then .... use default values Would that be a user experience bug? What would be a good reason to prevent the user from doing a reasonable action like this? If the size is explicitly set, why not let it remain so? I expect this was done to prevent the case where someone: 1. chooses a graphic tool from the Tools palette 2. clicks to start dragging out the graphic 3. accidentally double-clicks instead and ends the graphic, resulting in an unintentionally-tiny graphic It also lets you click once with a graphic tool to create a default-size graphic at that spot. Perhaps newGraphic could test what tool is chosen, and change the size only if the tool is "graphic". I can see the benefit of minimizing occurrences of objects that are *prohibitively* small to work with, but am less enthused about constraining options for the user at the much lower threshold of mere possible inconvenience. I'd opt for a 4px threshold. -- _______________________________________________ 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