Craig- Friday, October 23, 2009, 12:13:13 PM, you wrote:
> No problem with passing keydown, wherever it appears. Or explicitly putting > the character after the field. I just wanted to understand why explicitly > sending the message fails. Purely academic at this point. If you mean explicitly "dispatching", then it *is* working. You're intercepting the "keydown" message, then dispatching it directly to the stack. The stack is never going to put the char into your field unless you tell it to. By not "passing" the keydown message you're interfering with the normal message control path. In some cases this is exactly what you want to do: for a password field, for instance, you would want to intercept the char, store it away somewhere, and put a cummy char in its place in the field. In that case you do *not* want to pass the original char. But by dispatching the message you're saying "don't handle this char here, but instead bypass the normal handling and give the char directly to the stack script." If it's not handled there it will get passed on to the backscripts, engine, etc. But nothing is going to place the char into your field because you've very explicitly stopped that from happening. -- -Mark Wieder mwie...@ahsoftware.net _______________________________________________ use-revolution mailing list use-revolution@lists.runrev.com Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription preferences: http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution
