There's an outstanding request to fix an issue in the engine with regard to pasting images:
Currently, pasting an image from the Clipboard causes one of two things to happen: either the image is pasted into the bottom-most image object, or if there are no image objects it creates a new image sized to match the entire card. It's rarely the case in my own work that either is what I want. :) <http://support.runrev.com/bugdatabase/show_bug.cgi?id=2473>
While RunRev hasn't taken the time to address this in the engine, they did take the time to implement a workaround in their IDE's Edit menu:
if the clipBoard is "image" and the selectedImage is empty then lock messages lock screen create image put the clipBoardData["image"] into last image unlock messages unlock screen put true into tObjects choose pointer tool select last image
The question for us is whether we should maintain the purity of the MC IDE by using the engine's Paste command as it does now, or favor usability by implementing the workaround script from RR.
OK, this is now (obvious) engine bug nr. 2 (besides "set cursor to hand", and maybe more...) I don't think that we should workaround
this in our beloved lean IDE...
Ah yes, the cursor ID issue. I had held out hope for apparently too long that backward compatibility would ultimately become the higher priority, and that they'd adopt the principle of introducing new cursor images with new IDs in a quick bug-fix release.
But it's been long enough that it seems perhaps time that we all consider updating all of our software to correct for that anomaly, and that would include the MC IDE.
Should we update our cursor resource IDs to match the latest engine? Seems we're moving to a world in which is increasingly difficult to have a single IDE that works with multiple engines (consider libURL too), and thus far I think I've been the only one striving for that anyway.
I don't mind updating those resources if the general mood here is that it's time to do it.
We CAN of course, if necessary. ;-)
"Necessary" is the only question. We can't determine how long this legacy bug with image pasting will remain in place, so if we want improved behavior it seems more productive to do what we can with what's in hand than wait for an unknowable possibility down the road.
So do we really want this behavior? I'd find it useful, but I'm not sure if that's a universal desire; maybe some folks like the current behavior (can't imagine it, but HyperCarders sometimes have the strangest habits and this behavior seems to play into the only-one-bitmap HC paradigm).
Mr. Miller once promised (yes, he did!) to NOT touch anything in the engine, so we "friends of Carlotta er Metacard" will not experience
any incoveniences...
But it looks like that his memory i fading... :-/
On the contrary, with this specific issue he's fulfilling that promise to a fault: the engine's always had this anomaly, and RunRev has thus far preserved the behavior perfectly. :)
Yes, they lack resources (actullay i heard this one much too often and cannot stand this argument any longer!!!) but WE cannot tell this to
our customers, i think...
I've sent some of my customers to the Apple feedback page for bugs in OS X that affect WebMerge. But Kevin's a much nicer person than Jobs, so I wouldn't do the same with RR.
So the question is will Rev support the engine fully or not resp. "tweak" its IDE to "balance out" some engine inconsistencies?
I'm not clear on why so many engine issues are addressed only in their IDE scripts, but since I work on the MC IDE and neither the engine nor their IDE it wouldn't be productive for me to conjecture. My job is just to get the best results I can with what I have to work with at the moment, and leave the learnability of the Rev IDE to its keepers.
Yes, i AM a bit upset :-)
Especially if there are so many serious(!) and pending bugs and we have to hear something like "...upcoming features/news that will change the way of using Rev completely", as Mr. Miller stated in the chat last week, then i DO feel a bit pissed... :-)
I don't think things are quite so dire. Consider how long this behavior has been in place, and that the BZ request to update it was posted only in December '04.
I have no doubt that there may be some nifty things in the works, and I understand how they can be useful in driving new sales. But I also agree with the pervasive feeling expressed in all corners of RunRev's community that cleaning up language orthogonality and tightening up some behavioral loose ends will do more for their conversion rate than anything else.
But their conversion rate doesn't line my pocket so my time is best spent focused on the task at hand:
Should we consider this proposed script change, or let the old behavior stand?
And Klaus, relax. If you let other people's performance affect yours you'll become grouchier than a barking Texan. :)
PS: I saw a documentary recently on Klaus Nomi, and while I realize you have nothing in common but the first name if you're old enough to remember Nomi it's a wonderfully nostalgic film: <http://thenomisong.com>
-- Richard Gaskin Fourth World Media Corporation ___________________________________________________________ [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.FourthWorld.com _______________________________________________ metacard mailing list [email protected] http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/metacard
