Are there advantages of this approach compared to Dave C's suggestion of
on menuPick pNew, pOld hide group pOld show group pNew end menuPick
Now that I realize that there is a second parameter provided, it seems like the better way - but are there any cases where the "pOld" wouldn't be what might be expected ?
I don't think it makes much difference, but the former may be a better example of "defensive programming" as it accounts for the possibility that some other script (or even the developer during editing) may leave a group visible that isn't the same as pOld.
-- Richard Gaskin Fourth World Media Corporation
Richard's approach is more generic and can be used when some tabs show more than a single grp (it is plausible to have some group 'shared' by a few tabs).
Furthermore, the pOld parameter is not always passed, although I think this happens only when changing cards (I never bothered to investigate the circumstances). This is why I mentioned using a custom property
on menuPick pNew if the showingTab of me is not empty then hide grp (the showingTab of me) show grp pNew -- or: go cd pNew set the showingTab of me to pNew end menuPick
Preserving the visible grp name allows me also to sync the tab button correctly with the displayed grp when reopening the stack. This can be required when using multiple card approach.
Robert _______________________________________________ use-revolution mailing list use-revolution@lists.runrev.com http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution
