Re: [Ql-Users] WMAN Weirdness!
As a deputy, I am grateful... On 3 May 2012, at 23:02, Malcolm Cadman wrote: In message 4fa22264.9010...@dunbar-it.co.uk, Norman Dunbar nor...@dunbar-it.co.uk writes On 02/05/12 22:14, Malcolm Cadman wrote: As the great Bob (Marley) sang ... no WMAN no cry . :-) And we all know how Bob Marley likes his donuts? We Jammin. (You started it!) Cheers, Norm. 'Cos I knew you would appreciate the humour, my man . -- Malcolm Cadman ___ QL-Users Mailing List http://www.q-v-d.demon.co.uk/smsqe.htm ___ QL-Users Mailing List http://www.q-v-d.demon.co.uk/smsqe.htm
Re: [Ql-Users] WMAN Weirdness!
In message 4fa22264.9010...@dunbar-it.co.uk, Norman Dunbar nor...@dunbar-it.co.uk writes On 02/05/12 22:14, Malcolm Cadman wrote: As the great Bob (Marley) sang ... no WMAN no cry . :-) And we all know how Bob Marley likes his donuts? We Jammin. (You started it!) Cheers, Norm. 'Cos I knew you would appreciate the humour, my man . -- Malcolm Cadman ___ QL-Users Mailing List http://www.q-v-d.demon.co.uk/smsqe.htm
Re: [Ql-Users] WMAN Weirdness!
On 02/05/12 22:14, Malcolm Cadman wrote: As the great Bob (Marley) sang ... no WMAN no cry . :-) And we all know how Bob Marley likes his donuts? We Jammin. (You started it!) Cheers, Norm. -- Norman Dunbar Dunbar IT Consultants Ltd Registered address: Thorpe House 61 Richardshaw Lane Pudsey West Yorkshire United Kingdom LS28 7EL Company Number: 05132767 ___ QL-Users Mailing List http://www.q-v-d.demon.co.uk/smsqe.htm
[Ql-Users] WMAN Weirdness!
I'm in the middle of my next (exciting) article for QL Today and I've come across something unusual in WMAN under QPC. But first a simple question. When setting up a window, how do I set a couple of the loose items to unavailable? I know how to do it in the working definition after the window has been set up, but I think I need to do it in the status area before I call WM_SETUP? If so, what's the offset for the loose items into that area as opposed to the working definition? Or are they the same? I can't find anything in the QPTR docs. Ok, the weirdness. I have QPC running with a resolution of 1024 by 768. I have a window defined as being 336 by 224 and a shadow depth of 2. The window was set up using George's SETW utility, as usual. When I draw the window on screen it appears, without a shadow. Strange. What is even stranger is, I cannot move the window outside of the normal 512 by 256 window area. Even stranger, I notice that while the window is on screen, a shadow - probably the missing one - is displayed over on the far right of the screen outside the 512 by 256 window area. There's nothing unusual in this window - 7 loose items, 6 information windows, 1 application window (no menu yet) and that's about it. Every other program I have moves happily around and keeps the shadow with it. This one is puzzling! When I trace the program execution, the call to iop_flim correctly returns the 1024 by 768 at 0 by 0 settings for the maximum window limits. Any clues? By the way, QPC is running under Linux - as it always does. But the problem also shows up under QPC on Windows XP as well. I'm trawling through the window definition even as I type, but so far, it all looks fine to me: STOP PRESS SOLVED! Got the b*gger! It seems that SETW, not the latest version, defines a WORD for the window flag byte and the shadow depth byte. Because I was using an older version (sorry George, I'll get it updated soon!) it was generating thw wrong value for these two bytes. In my stupidity, I set the word to $82 (aka 130) whihc set the shadow depth to 130 instead of 2. The word should have been $8002 (aka 32270). So, setting a bonkers shadow depth was the cause of my problem, the shadow was hitting the window limits as I moved the window around while the window itself appeared to be ok. Cheers, Norm. -- Norman Dunbar Dunbar IT Consultants Ltd Registered address: Thorpe House 61 Richardshaw Lane Pudsey West Yorkshire United Kingdom LS28 7EL Company Number: 05132767 ___ QL-Users Mailing List http://www.q-v-d.demon.co.uk/smsqe.htm
Re: [Ql-Users] WMAN Weirdness!
On 02/05/12 09:55, Norman Dunbar wrote: It seems that SETW, not the latest version, defines a WORD for the window flag byte and the shadow depth byte. When I typed the above, what I was meaning to say was that SETW combines the two bytes (flag and shadow depth) into a single word, not that it generates a separate word for each of them. English isn't my first language! :-) Cheers, Norm. -- Norman Dunbar Dunbar IT Consultants Ltd Registered address: Thorpe House 61 Richardshaw Lane Pudsey West Yorkshire United Kingdom LS28 7EL Company Number: 05132767 ___ QL-Users Mailing List http://www.q-v-d.demon.co.uk/smsqe.htm
Re: [Ql-Users] WMAN Weirdness!
On 02/05/12 11:35, George Gwilt wrote: The status area is $40 bytes long so that the loose item status block starts at wst + $40. Thanks George, that works perfectly. It appears that the offset into the definition's status area is exactly the same as for the working definition. This is good. Thanks again. Cheers, Norm. -- Norman Dunbar Dunbar IT Consultants Ltd Registered address: Thorpe House 61 Richardshaw Lane Pudsey West Yorkshire United Kingdom LS28 7EL Company Number: 05132767 ___ QL-Users Mailing List http://www.q-v-d.demon.co.uk/smsqe.htm
Re: [Ql-Users] WMAN Weirdness!
On 02/05/2012 10:55, Norman Dunbar wrote: On 02/05/12 09:55, Norman Dunbar wrote: It seems that SETW, not the latest version, defines a WORD for the window flag byte and the shadow depth byte. When I typed the above, what I was meaning to say was that SETW combines the two bytes (flag and shadow depth) into a single word, not that it generates a separate word for each of them. English isn't my first language! :-) Cheers, Norm. Oh come on now, I've heard many a scot put BBC English to shame All the best - Bill ___ QL-Users Mailing List http://www.q-v-d.demon.co.uk/smsqe.htm
Re: [Ql-Users] WMAN Weirdness!
In message 4fa10f60.5070...@dunbar-it.co.uk, Norman Dunbar nor...@dunbar-it.co.uk writes Hi Norman, As the great Bob (Marley) sang ... no WMAN no cry . :-) On 02/05/12 11:35, George Gwilt wrote: The status area is $40 bytes long so that the loose item status block starts at wst + $40. Thanks George, that works perfectly. It appears that the offset into the definition's status area is exactly the same as for the working definition. This is good. Thanks again. Cheers, Norm. -- Malcolm Cadman ___ QL-Users Mailing List http://www.q-v-d.demon.co.uk/smsqe.htm
