"Preston Shea" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > I get out of my depth pretty easily, so your observation may be going over > my head: > > "But there is a way of setting the property (hide and show) without > actually referring to the property "visible". So why can't we > find out the state of the property without knowing explicitly > about it, i.e., what the property's name is? " > > Hide and show are verbs (commands) visible is a property with boolean value: > "If the visible of myObject is false then..." or "If not the visible of > myObject then..." > I don't know if you could say this with just "hide"
The adjective that goes along with the verb "hide" is "hidden". My question was: why can't we ask if an object is hidden? Basically, I'm saying that if we can use hide field "xxx" instead of having to say set the visible of field "xxx" to false they why can't we say if field "xxx" is hidden ... instead of if the visible of field "xxx" is false ... Just asking if Transcript, which has been made English-like in the first instance (the setting of the property by using the verb "hide") can be extended to be English-like in the second instance (accessing the state of the property by using the adjective "hidden"). - marty -- Marty Billingsley ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) The University of Chicago Laboratory Schools _______________________________________________ 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
