If your second stack is a substack of the first I don't believe you have to open it (just tested it here and I didn't have to , I just referred to it by name). Otherwise you might have to go the "start using" route, but I've never gone that route.
Mark On Jul 17, 2010, at 12:08 PM, wayne durden wrote: > Thanks Mark, will likely do this, seems clunky. With regard to your second > suggestion, I may try some experimenting there but I am not crystal clear. > I assume I would have to open the stack first, correct, and if so, I think > that's where the window outline pops up... I tried a "start using" form at > one time and the "click at loc" command didn't work there, from which I > assumed that the start using puts the handlers of the second stack in play > but it's not exactly as if the card was there... > > Thanks, > > Wayne > > On Sat, Jul 17, 2010 at 2:40 PM, Mark Swindell <[email protected]>wrote: > >> You might try setting the loc of the second stack off-screen, though you >> shouldn't have to do this... >> >> HTH, >> Mark >> >> On Jul 17, 2010, at 11:24 AM, wayne durden wrote: >> >>> Hello all, I am using Ent. 4.0 and am having an issue where I am using a >>> button on a main "control center" stack simply to open another stack and >>> click at the location of a button there. What happens is that for a >> moment >>> the outline of the window for the second stack is visible and I would >> prefer >>> it happen completely hidden away. I have tried locking the screen before >>> opening the second stack and unlocking at the end of the handler, I have >>> tried "go invisible stack [name of second stack]" etc., but no matter >> what >>> on this XP machine, the second stack's window outline flashes to the >> screen >>> momentarily. >>> >>> For instance, here is the code at the moment: >>> >>> --lock screen >>> go invisible stack "blogBuilder.rev" >>> >>> click at the loc of btn btnBuildAllBlogSections of stack >>> "blogBuilder.rev" >>> close stack "blogBuilder.rev" >>> --unlock screen >>> >>> Note the lock and unlock items were commented out after they proved not >> to >>> work. Additionally, instead of go invisible stack... I have used "open >>> stack". >>> >>> Appreciate anyone jogging my memory how one solves this... >>> >>> Thanks, >>> >>> Wayne >>> _______________________________________________ >>> use-revolution mailing list >>> [email protected] >>> Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your >> subscription preferences: >>> http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution >> >> _______________________________________________ >> use-revolution mailing list >> [email protected] >> Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your >> subscription preferences: >> http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution >> > _______________________________________________ > use-revolution mailing list > [email protected] > Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription > preferences: > http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution _______________________________________________ use-revolution mailing list [email protected] Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription preferences: http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution
