I completely agree with what Ryan says, but if you still want to use getNextHighestDepth(), as Nathan commented, you could do something like this and get a similar result:
...getNextHighestDepth() + 10; Daniel On 2/3/06, ryanm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > No, but what Ryan describes is exactly what getNextHighestDepth() is for. > > > Not at all. If you have a content container at 1, a navigation container > at 2 (so that drop downs lay on top of the content), and a footer container > at 3, and you need to add another content container (for rotating ads or > something), you want it to be next to the other content in depth so that > it's under the navigation. I avoid getNextHighestDepth like the plague, it > is an evil monkey living in your closet that wants to kill you. Or at least > be a major pain in the ass while you try to figure out why you can't control > the z-position of your elements. I don't even use it in loops when I'm > generating a bunch of movie clips, like rows in a select box or something, I > use the iterator for the loop, that way their depth and their index in the > array is always the same. The only time I've ever used getNextHighestDepth > was in one-off projects where I didn't know or care where the elements ended > up because they were created and forgotten. Anything that might have to be > referenced or moved later should probably have its depth set explicitly. > > ryanm > > _______________________________________________ > Flashcoders mailing list > Flashcoders@chattyfig.figleaf.com > http://chattyfig.figleaf.com/mailman/listinfo/flashcoders > -- Daniel Cascais Tel: +56 (0)2 4589495 Cel: +56 (0)9 9417355 _______________________________________________ Flashcoders mailing list Flashcoders@chattyfig.figleaf.com http://chattyfig.figleaf.com/mailman/listinfo/flashcoders
