Alan,
Thanks - that gives me a different approach to try out that sounds
very promising.
Julian
On Jul 7, 2006, at 8:59 PDT, Alan MacDougall wrote:
Julian Bleecker wrote:
That's great Ian — thanks for the help! Each of those little
idioms makes sense when described — I never would've figured
these out just whacking at various permutations, particularly the
very baroque incantation leveraging the invisible symbol names.
You may find it more convenient to consider MovieClip items as
primitives -- or at least not worth your time to extend -- and
create classes which wrap them. If you just want MovieClips to do
particular things, or exhibit polymorphic behavior, you can
probably get away with this:
class Foo
{
private var myClip:MovieClip;
public function Foo()
{
// create the MovieClip, possibly by
// creating a new instance from the library
}
public function doThing()
{
myClip.doSomething();
myClip.doSomethingElse();
var tween:Tween = new Tween(some properties, myClip);
trace("And so on");
}
}
I find this approach easier to work with and, since you could have
more than one MovieClip in your custom object, more flexible.
(Sure, Flash also lets you nest MovieClips ad infinitum, but moving
away from parent.child.child.child is another benefit of going Java
style.)
_______________________________________________
Flashcoders@chattyfig.figleaf.com
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
_______________________________________________
Flashcoders@chattyfig.figleaf.com
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
