If you just want to remove all the children, do something like this: while (this.numChildren() > 0) this.removeChildAt(0);
--- In flexcoders@yahoogroups.com, "Alex Harui" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Nope, it is essentially an array. If I have > > var a:Array = [ "Nate", "Alex"]; > a[2] = "Bjorn"; > a.shift(); > a[2] is no longer "Bjorn", you are now at a[1]. > > ________________________________ > > From: flexcoders@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On > Behalf Of Bjorn Schultheiss > Sent: Tuesday, March 27, 2007 6:19 PM > To: flexcoders@yahoogroups.com > Subject: Re: [flexcoders] Scaling Custom Components > > > > Hey Alex, > > if 0 == childA > can you insert childB at 99 for example. > > if so if you remove childA does childB's index change? > > can you ensure that you're child will remain at an index? > > > > On 28/03/2007, at 11:12 AM, Alex Harui wrote: > > > > > Children renumber after one is removed > > 0 = childA > 1 = childB > 2 = childC > > After removeChildAt(0) > > 0 = childB > 1 = childC > > Look at the code for removeAllChildren. > > It will either removeChildAt(0) j times or iterate backwards. > > ________________________________ > > From: flexcoders@yahoogroups.com > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Nate Pearson > Sent: Tuesday, March 27, 2007 5:22 PM > To: flexcoders@yahoogroups.com > Subject: [flexcoders] Scaling Custom Components > > > > I have a custom component that adds multiple shapes during > UpdateDisplayList. When I scale the browser it calls update > display > list and draws over all of my shapes. > > I have tried: > > j = this.numChildren; > for (i=0; i<j; i++){ > this.removeChildAt(i); > } > > Before I write redraw my shapes in UpdateDisplayList. I always > get an > outofbounds error after i exceed numAutomationChildren(?). If i > try > the same loop with numAutomationChildren nothing disappears. > > It won't let me call this.removeAllChildren (i think because I'm > extending an UIComponent and not a Container)! Isnt there a way > for > me to get all those shapes outta there? > > Maybe I'm taking the wrong approach. > > Thanks in advance, > > Nate >
