Scott Raney a �crit:
> Frankly I'm a little mystified that it's possible to consider the
> concept of a group in OMO to be anything other than an ugly hack. You
> get none of the benefits of groups in MetaCard (e.g., clipping,
> scrolling, nesting, handler and attribute inheritance, and the ability
> to place them on different cards like backgrounds), they're also
> purely extent-based both for selection and manupulation, and not even
> really objects at all, just (as you've pointed out) some sort of
> disembodied list of objects that should be moved together.
Yes, I was already convinced of the huge superiority of MC groupsversus
OMO groups, but what I need right now is just a "disembodied
list of objects that should be moved together"...
>
>
> Nevertheless, being able to specify a list of controls to group (as in
> "group button 1 and field 2") is a useful feature, which is why it was
> implemented in MetaCard years ago. Why it wasn't documented at that
> time I'm not as sure about, but I'll bug report this so it will be for
> the 2.4 doc.
Does it mean that this feature still exists ? I'm gonna try it right away
!
> Yes: groups are real objects in MetaCard, so the controls have to be
> children of the group, which of course means they also have to be
> contiguous. This also helps with setting up keyboard navigation so
> you don't have to worry about creating a situation where you tab into
> a group and then back out when navigating a set of radio buttons.
I see, but I think this should be documented (neither MC nor Rev docs
mention it)...
Thanks. JB
Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/
Info: http://www.xworlds.com/metacard/mailinglist.htm
Please send bug reports to <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, not this list.
