Curry writes: > It seems like many people are thinking with the workaround approach--how can > I get around the lack of this feature. That's fine for real missing > features, and is a common thing to do in xTalk or any other very high level > development system, but this mouse() function is a feature that has been > around forever and a day, and works very well for these types of behaviors. > It is much easier to implement in the situations where it's most often used. > It also is more readable in many situations. (There are good situations for > using the event handlers too, of course.)
I have a least a layman's understanding of both sides of this, and while I appreciate the technical challenge I also recognize the convenience of polling. In my own work, most of my arguments in favor of polling go away as long as I have a solution to whatever it is I'm working on. Let's try this: Can we come up with a situation in which mouseMove cannot provide what polling the mouse state in a loop provides? -- Richard Gaskin Fourth World Media Corporation Custom Software and Web Development for All Major Platforms Developer of WebMerge 1.9: Publish any Database on Any Site ___________________________________________________________ [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.FourthWorld.com Tel: 323-225-3717 AIM: FourthWorldInc _______________________________________________ use-revolution mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution
