On 1/19/04 6:36 AM, "Ken Norris" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> on 1/18/04 8:06 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] at > [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > >> Date: Sun, 18 Jan 2004 19:08:32 +0900 >> From: Doug Lerner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> Subject: Re: rectangle of 0,0,0,0 ok? >> >> Those don't truly *hide* the field, in the sense that if you check to see if >> the mouse is in the region of the field it still turns out to be true, even >> if the field is not visible. > ---------- > That's usually a _good_ thing, but we don't know what your usage is. If you > could explain that it might help. Well, I am doing a check to see if the cursor is in the range of that field or not and when it is "hidden" I don't want the check to succeed. > > IMO setting the rect like that might be a bad idea. Instead, just leave it's > width and height alone, and send it off screen by its loc: > > 1) ## Remember it's loc: > global gTfld > put the loc of fld n into gTFld > > 2) ## Send it offstack: > set the loc of fld n to "-1000,-1000" If its wider than 1500 (hard to > imagine) then increase the negative numbers > > 3) ## Call it back: > global gTfld > set the loc of fld n to gTFld Why is that better than changing the rect? Is there a technical reason that is better? Thanks! doug _______________________________________________ use-revolution mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution
