>Why does it have to return the number of parts of only the topmost layer?
>Why not have it return as follows:
>
>> the number of parts of <card>
>
>I would phrase this:
>the number of card parts of <card>
>--returns a count of all the parts of all the layers of the card
Hi,
I'm sorry, I screwed up here. I meant to say:
put the number of card parts into variable
and
put the number of background parts into variable
must return only the topmost layer's number of parts. Why? Because I am
trying to solve the problem of converted HyperCard stacks requesting "the
style of cd part 1" and recieving "pixelImage" because part 1 is the card
picture, while they don't expect the card picture to be a card part (it
isn't in HyperCard). By making the above statement evaluate only the number
of parts of the topmost layer, we would circumvent this problem, because
then the converter could "hide away" the card picture by placing it on an
own layer below the other card parts.
>Would you allow multiple backgrounds on a single card? If so, then:
>the number of background parts of <card>
>--returns a count of all the background parts on any layer in any background
>on this card.
>
>If no multiple backgrounds, then would some sort of sharing of layers
>between backgrounds be possible? Some way of more flexible object reuse is
>important. Once you get used to it in MetaCard, you can really take
>advantage of it.
These are both features that are possible fairly easily, I think. At least
some sort of "alias" layer would be possible. But I'd rather not delve into
those at this point, as I really only brought into play layers as a
possible solution to our problem with card/background pictures.
>Finally, a way to reference objects regardless of their layer would be good:
>
>part 3 of this card
>--is the third part regardless of which layer it's on.
>part 3 of layer 1 of this card
>--valid only if there are three parts on layer 1
Yeah, that's why I feel that layers are not the optimum solution to the
porblem. *all* card part counting would have to ignore the card picture
when counting. And with standing HyperCard syntax, we need another way to
work around this. I guess we should move layers back to the metaphorical
"version 2.0" feature list and I'll go look for another solution...
Cheers,
-- M. Uli Kusterer
------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.weblayout.com/witness
'The Witnesses of TeachText are everywhere...'
The future of programming: http://freecard.sourceforge.net
_______________________________________________
Freecard-general mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://lists.sourceforge.net/mailman/listinfo/freecard-general
