Thanks Richard, Brian and Mark. Now that the rush is over I can breathe and try to work this out, again, to make it simple for even simpletons to understand! ;) It is, as said before, an issue that has been an issue for 6 years, gets poo-poo'd and ignored along with the plethora of other fundamental issues in favour of adding new features that get partially completed and stupid expensive $500 plugins no one will buy!
https://www.dropbox.com/s/p3vu13khoscqjvk/LayersFail.mov?dl=0 I've tried it on Linux, Windoze and MacOS. This is created in LC9.6.0 Stable. Not from a binary or an old version (thanks for the suggestion, Brian, but I was working on a brand new, quick turn-around project - 3 days to produce a fully working TV Gameshow onscreen graphics application from _**scratch**_ - LC rocks when it's not complete turd!), If it's, as Jacque infers, down to how layers are handled then it's probably an Engine thing. Indeed, Mark@LC does indeed infer this too in one of the bug reports. As Richard says, this could produce Backwards Compatibility issues. But I never understand why that should stop it from being fixed. The 'just the way it is' card should NEVER prevent progress and improvement. The old engines and versions still exist and can be used until the old apps are brought up to date. Old code and methods are often deprecated in our business in all languages. So why not improve, ney, FIX the g-damned dysfunctional layering? Pathetic excuses, that's why! I've looked through all of the IDE code and it's a serious mess! Much like the stupid dictionary browser that's got itself stuck in the 1950s somehow. I think Turing had something to do with it. :/ But, as Mark@AHS mentioned, even if I did find a fix and offered it, because it's a binary it cant be easily posted up on Github and LC seem to have gone to the isolation ward since lockdown (and about 6mths before as well). Our very breath here is wasted because, as is noted by the lack of noise from LC despite their chipping in on other conversations on this forum, PB is not a subject LC are even remotely interested in. Based on the volley of issues on Bugzilla I cherry-picked from related to PB not working, barely any have been touched in the last 6yrs despite being confirmed. HTML5 deployment is abandonware (I'm going to have to ask for a refund on my two three year licences for it after all the failed promises of it NOT being abandonware). Project Browser is abandonware. Widgets and the LC marketplace, abandonware. Script editor, Abandonware. Monte's mergext suite, practically abandonware. LCFM Native, definitely abandonware ( https://quality.livecode.com/buglist.cgi?quicksearch=lcfm) for all the money they fed into that amazing waste of time. LC itself?? Heading that way. Sean Cole *Pi Digital * On Sat, 15 Aug 2020 at 00:16, Mark Wieder via use-livecode < email@example.com> wrote: > On 8/14/20 3:33 PM, Brian Milby via use-livecode wrote: > > > If I can get a stack that demonstrates the issue, I would like to poke > around and see if anything jumps out. If it is engine level, it is > probably a bit out of my lane (although I have contributed a few lines of > C++). If it is IDE I may have a better chance. > > Brian- > > I'm pretty sure this is IDE-level and not in the engine. But I've stuck > my toe into the PB pool before and I'm not inclined to go there again. > Plus at the rate my pull requests get ignored I'm not very motivated to > try to fix things. > > -- > Mark Wieder > ahsoftw...@gmail.com > > _______________________________________________ > use-livecode mailing list > firstname.lastname@example.org > Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your > subscription preferences: > http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode > _______________________________________________ use-livecode mailing list email@example.com Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription preferences: http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode