If I remeber correctly, goToAndStop() and MoviClip.gotoAndStop() are
completely separate functions, and even have different behavior on
the root timeline.
On May 9, 2006, at 5:47 PM, Tyler Wright wrote:
This is Great! What a horrible thing to have to know, it just
doesn't make
sense that the keyword this would fix it. I can't imagine what
other scope
gotoAndStop would effect in this way.
Thanks Elibol. It fixes the problem for both situations, endless
looping
for..i..in and the for..i..in's that end prematurely.
"Browser Power for Flash"
http://www.flashforwardconference.com/sessions?sid=158
Tyler
On 5/9/06, elibol <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Hey that's great man! Congratulations, I'm very happy for you =]
So what
is it you're going to speak about?
Weird... Try this:
for (var i in list){
trace(i);
this.gotoAndStop (i);
}
}
Seems that you need to explicity refer to this. I remember there
being
problems with certain MovieClip functions when they weren't
refered to with
the this object. I think that in the object stack there might be two
definitions of the function and 'this' makes sure that the actual
movieclip
is the first one that is examined...
Extending MovieClips is always full of suprises man...
This is interesting, I'm wondering if it's gonna fix your problem
though?
M
On 5/9/06, Tyler Wright <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hello Elibol!
>
> I apologize, I mislead you. My EventDispatcher is no longer a
problem
> and the issue I face now seems to be different. I can only
duplicate it
> making a component class that extends MovieClip. The issue is
that the
> for..i..in loop stops after a gotoAndStop.
>
> class Test extends MovieClip
> {
> var list:Object;
>
> function Test()
> {
> list =
> {
> one:"one",
> two:"two",
> three:"three",
> four:"four",
> five:"five"
> };
>
> for (var i in list)
> {
> trace(i);
> gotoAndStop(list[i]);
> }
> }
>
> }
>
> If you define this class and set it up as a component in the
Library you
> will see that only "one" is traced out. Then you can comment out
the
> gotoAndStop(); and it loops through all 5. It behaves the same
whether or
> not these frames actually exist. I think I'll post this to the
list as well,
> but thanks for responding so quickly. Did I tell you I got
accepted to speak
> at FlashForward in September? On Flash and JavaScript.
>
> Tyler
>
>
> On 5/9/06, elibol <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > Nevermind my former message. You can also use the
AsBroadcaster class.
> > I find it's very solid, however, it doesn't seem to be your
problem at all.
> >
> > If you are coding in frames, and frames with function calls and
> > variable definitions are called more than once, then this can
mislead your
> > assumptions about how many times a piece of code is executed.
It might just
> > be that you are adding the same object to a broadcaster more
than once.
> >
> > I'm not sure but it seems like this is a possibility. Again
though, an
> > ends to what you've mentioned on object enumeration, the for
in should never
> > go into an infinite loop.
> >
> > M
> >
>
>
_______________________________________________
[email protected]
To change your subscription options or search the archive:
http://chattyfig.figleaf.com/mailman/listinfo/flashcoders
Brought to you by Fig Leaf Software
Premier Authorized Adobe Consulting and Training
http://www.figleaf.com
http://training.figleaf.com
_______________________________________________
[email protected]
To change your subscription options or search the archive:
http://chattyfig.figleaf.com/mailman/listinfo/flashcoders
Brought to you by Fig Leaf Software
Premier Authorized Adobe Consulting and Training
http://www.figleaf.com
http://training.figleaf.com
