On 8/25/04 3:21 PM, "Troy Rollins" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> I tried some of that. I guess the issue is not what I thought, but
> more-so the clone operation itself. It seems very difficult to avoid
> some kind of flash when a stack is cloned.

Theoretically you can save the "original" stack in an invisible state and
then when you clone it you only see the new (not the original stack).


Ken Ray
Sons of Thunder Software
Web site: http://www.sonsothunder.com/
Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]


_______________________________________________
use-revolution mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution

Reply via email to