Ya know, I remember a good while back, several years, that in the process of
debugging I would get into these unstable states. It was something in my code
that was throwing an error, but the debugger instead of catching it and
stopping at the line, basically looked like it completed. But it
I knew once but I forgot.
Bob S
> On Mar 13, 2019, at 13:59 , Mark Wieder via use-livecode
> wrote:
>
>> Had that happened initially I would not have started this thread.
>
> I think there's a valuable lesson to be learned here.
> I'm not sure what it is.
>
> --
> Mark Wieder
>
On 3/13/19 3:59 PM, Mark Wieder via use-livecode wrote:
On 3/13/19 12:10 PM, Richmond via use-livecode wrote:
Had that happened initially I would not have started this thread.
I think there's a valuable lesson to be learned here.
I'm not sure what it is.
It sort of fits with what I've
"Have you tried turning it off and on again?"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nn2FB1P_Mn8
Lagi
On Wed, 13 Mar 2019 at 20:59, Mark Wieder via use-livecode <
use-livecode@lists.runrev.com> wrote:
> On 3/13/19 12:10 PM, Richmond via use-livecode wrote:
>
> > Had that happened initially I would
Yes, there is a valuable lesson:
reel in one's impulsive nature, and don't panic.
Richmond.
On 13.03.19 22:59, Mark Wieder via use-livecode wrote:
On 3/13/19 12:10 PM, Richmond via use-livecode wrote:
Had that happened initially I would not have started this thread.
I think there's a
> > Richmond M. wrote:
> > Had that happened initially I would not have started this thread.
> Mark Wieder wrote:
> I think there's a valuable lesson to be learned here. I'm not sure
> what it is.
I wrote also things to the use-list (mostly silly typos) I wished a
few seconds later I could
On 3/13/19 12:10 PM, Richmond via use-livecode wrote:
Had that happened initially I would not have started this thread.
I think there's a valuable lesson to be learned here.
I'm not sure what it is.
--
Mark Wieder
ahsoftw...@gmail.com
___
Having written that,and having reopened LC 9.0.3 it behaved "as it should"
and reported my screen height as 1080.
Had that happened initially I would not have started this thread.
Richmond.
On 13.03.19 21:07, Richmond wrote:
0,23,1920,1034
On 13.03.19 21:06, Brian Milby via use-livecode
0,23,1920,1034
On 13.03.19 21:06, Brian Milby via use-livecode wrote:
What is reported with just screenRect?
Thanks,
Brian
On Mar 13, 2019, 3:05 PM -0400, Richmond via use-livecode
, wrote:
What is not working is that 1034 is the number given regardless of
whether the
words *effective* and
What is reported with just screenRect?
Thanks,
Brian
On Mar 13, 2019, 3:05 PM -0400, Richmond via use-livecode
, wrote:
> What is not working is that 1034 is the number given regardless of
> whether the
> words *effective* and *working* are used or not.
>
> Richmond.
>
> On 13.03.19 21:02,
What is not working is that 1034 is the number given regardless of
whether the
words *effective* and *working* are used or not.
Richmond.
On 13.03.19 21:02, Richard Gaskin via use-livecode wrote:
Richmond wrote:
> when I put
>
> *put the working screenRect *
>
> into the msgBox I get
Richmond wrote:
> when I put
>
> *put the working screenRect *
>
> into the msgBox I get *0,23,1920,1034*
>
> that includes the macOS Dock and the menuBar!
Menubar at the top with Dock at the bottom - that seems correct.
What is not working?
--
Richard Gaskin
Fourth World Systems
Software
So, "here" on macOS 10.14.4 beta 5 with LC 9.0.3 rc-1 [ "Edge City" as
they used to say when I wore flared jeans ],
when I put
*put the working screenRect *
into the msgBox I get *0,23,1920,1034*
that includes the macOS Dock and the menuBar!
*put the effective screenRect*
just throws an
13 matches
Mail list logo
