Michael Julian Lew wrote:
> Richard Gaskin wrote:
>> BNig wrote:
>>> that is determined somewhat arbitrarily by the
>>> revBackScriptLibrary in handler
>>> on newGraphic
>>> if the width of the target < 9 and the height of the target < 9 then
>>> .... use default values
>> Would that be a user experience bug?
>> I can see the benefit of minimizing occurrences of objects that are
>> *prohibitively* small to work with, but am less enthused about
>> constraining options for the user at the much lower threshold of mere
>> possible inconvenience.
>> I'd opt for a 4px threshold.
> Seems to me that if the current restriction on the result of “clone”
> is intended to prevent possible problems when tools palette is being
> used then a very bad design decision was made. A solution should not
> affect what happens when the user clones an abject that is already in
> the stack.
> The script function “clone” should clone the object _exactly_ when
> used by itself, but could be used in conjunction with size-dectecting
> code for the palette.
In principle I agree. The challenge is that we don't have a separate
message for clone as distinct from other ways to create a new graphic.
If it were up to me, I'd say let the user do whatever they want. If
they want to make a control too small to be used, who am I to stop them?
But as Jeanne suggested, it may be that the IDE is trying to be helpful
in cases of accidental resizing too small.
Personally, I'd favor simplifying the extra work the IDE is doing and
just leave the user alone.
If there must be a threshold, at least make it smaller than it is now.
Fourth World Systems
Software Design and Development for the Desktop, Mobile, and the Web
use-livecode mailing list
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription