That's what I thought, but wanted to be sure I wasn't missing something obvious.
It makes no sense (to me) to have these be a joint property. They are two separate things. Example: I have several images I want to drag around and reposition on a card, but I also want to constrain their size to 200,200. It would be nice to be able to do this in the IDE without the risk of images blowing up all over the place. (Returning from editing a group, for example... surprise!) Is there some structural reason within Rev that the status quo has to be as it is? If not, this strikes me as a good feature enhancement... why not have two separate properties... what do others think? Mark On Feb 3, 2010, at 9:37 AM, dunb...@aol.com wrote: > Is this so that one doesn't inadvertantly grab a handle and change the > size? > > You can set a custom property and trap the resizecontrol message, I guess: > > The "lockrect" property might be something like "82,23" > > on resizecontrol > set the width of me to item 1 of the lockRect of me > set the height of me to item 2 of the lockrect of me > end resizecontrol > > It won't actually lock the rect when dragging a handle, but at least > restores it when you stop. > > I tried this with mouseMove, and sometimes it worked. But now I always get > recursion timeouts. > > Craig Newman > _______________________________________________ > 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 _______________________________________________ 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
