Scott Rossi wrote:
Recently, Jacque Landman Gay wrote:
I have no data to suggest that setting the text of an image is any better or
worse than the method of putting image-related data into an image. I've
only seen references by the programming dudes at RunRev to use the text
property, so I do.
They're different properties for different purposes.
Great recap Jacque, but I was referring to the methods of setting text of an
image versus putting image content stored in a variable into an image. As
far as I know, both methods accomplish the same result while neither offers
any significant benefit over the other.
I need increase the alphaData of my comments so they're not so opaque.
Oops. It's me that's opaque. I know you knew all that, so I was
preaching to myself. Bloviating. Preaching to the choir. Blathering.
Talking to hear myself.
But me either. I mean, I don't know if there's any difference. I use
"put" more than "set" just because I'm so used to it and habit is a hard
thing to break. Mark Waddingham uses "set" because he thinks of
everything in terms of base syntax and I suspect under the hood that
putting an image really sets it. Or at least, that's my theory and I'm
sticking to it.
--
Jacqueline Landman Gay | jac...@hyperactivesw.com
HyperActive Software | http://www.hyperactivesw.com
_______________________________________________
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
