Terry Judd wrote:
> Yeah, I've used FSM in combination with scripting in the android
> versions a couple of apps (admittedly they were only designed to work
> in portrait mode) and it seemed to work well enough.
If you make a button that looks HIG-savvy finger-sized on a 4" phone,
what happens
On 20/08/2018 2:45 pm, "use-livecode on behalf of Richard Gaskin via
use-livecode" wrote:
Most of the lengthier discussions I've seen about layout handling here
and on the forums stem from attempting to get precise control from FSM.
In some cases it may be possible to mix FSM with
Brahmanathaswami wrote:
> re Geometry: You keep telling us this again and again, but you never
> provide an example.
Given how many years most of the members of this list have been
scripting, it hadn't occurred to me that would be useful. Here's a
simple example that illustrates the basics, th
Brian Milby wrote:
> I can't speak directly to Android, but once you start doing resize
> handlers, I can't see using fullscreenmode. If you are going to
> position anything, may as well position it based on actual device
> metrics.
That's all I was getting at when I wrote:
"FullScreenMode makes
When the engine resizes the stack, I’m assuming that it takes into account any
system furniture? That isn’t a consideration for iOS (at least yet). I’m
excluding keyboard for the moment.
I’m not sure why there should be a difference between any platform though. Line
14 put the group’s center 25
> Le 18 août 2018 à 20:32, Richard Gaskin via use-livecode
> a écrit :
>
> Ludovic THEBAULT wrote:
>
> > How get the « real » rect of the stack ?
>
> Without fullScreenMode it's as simple as:
>
>get the rect of this stack
>
> FullScreenMode makes handling dynamic layout details complex.
On 8/19/18 10:21 PM, Brian Milby via use-livecode wrote:
I'm not sure what the fleet of widths would
need to be supported on the Android side though.
They vary all over the place. Basically you need to calculate a ratio
and set all the control sizes accordingly.
I can't speak directly to An
The stack is built for iPhone 6/7/8 Plus dimensions (414px wide). This
means that the navigation bar is a little too wide to show properly on a
regular iPhone 6/7/8. The icons are 384px wide (edge to edge) and those
phones are only 375px wide. If you also want to target the iPhone 4/5/5s
then th
On 8/19/18 9:37 PM, Sannyasin Brahmanathaswami via use-livecode wrote:
"Intuitively" resize stack is all that is required.
And, "intuitively" a group should place all controls relative to itself.
And it does on iOS
I think that was just incidental. The original stack was sized to fit
the same
I was mistaken on the show/hide thing. The controls were behind the
browser the whole time.
On Sun, Aug 19, 2018 at 9:55 PM, Brian Milby wrote:
> Line 14 is required on iPad. Otherwise the controls stay where they
> originated (behind the browser). There is really no need to hide the icons
>
Line 14 is required on iPad. Otherwise the controls stay where they
originated (behind the browser). There is really no need to hide the icons
anyway though... they will be below the physical screen when in landscape
mode. That saves 2 lines :)
On Sun, Aug 19, 2018 at 9:49 PM, J. Landman Gay vi
Jacque wrote:
"I see. That looks like a redraw problem. The resizeStack handler
isworking but the redraw fails. I did notice the icons were missing but
didn't try to figure out why. A quick test says the footer is visible it
portrait and false in landscape, but it isn't being drawn to screen for
s
On Android, hiding and showing a group works as expected, I don't need to
loop through the controls to show them. At first I thought they weren't
being drawn, but in fact the whole group was below the bottom of the stack.
--
Jacqueline Landman Gay | jac...@hyperactivesw.com
HyperActive Software
@Brian and all > glad this opened an important discussion..
and thank to the attempt to make it work @Brian footer control were too far
down on that card(android)
Many of cards in the SivaSiva app, would need major geometry refactoring
(month(s) of work) without fullScreenMode...so I am not con
> On 20 Aug 2018, at 10:53 am, Richard Gaskin via use-livecode
> wrote:
>
> As long as both messages are sent it may not matter, but that's the thing I'm
> unclear on: what does orientationChanged tell us on a mobile device that
> resizeStack doesn't? When is one sent without the other sent
Jacque wrote:
> Android does receive orientationChanged messages. I've been tinkering
> with Swami's test stack, and dynamic positioning (no fullscreenMode)
> works fine with some effort.
Is there a benefit to responding to orientationChanged instead of
resizeStack?
As long as both messages ar
I did figure out that within preOpenCard, the reported stack rect is still
the dimensions of the saved stack file (at least on iOS). There is also
the detail that when you hide a group, it sets all of the objects to hidden
which has to be undone in a loop. I've worked out moving the group and the
Android does receive orientationChanged messages. I've been tinkering
with Swami's test stack, and dynamic positioning (no fullscreenMode)
works fine with some effort.
The footer isn't a widget, it's a group containing half a dozen
controls, so they all need to be individually managed. You wer
You probably still want to set the rect for the footer to be sure it lands
where you want it on different size devices. That could be done in the
preOpenCard handler (just put it where it needs to be for portrait)
on preOpenCard
local tWidth, tHeight, tFooterRect
put the width of this stack
On 8/19/18 2:26 PM, Richmond Mathewson via use-livecode wrote:
I'm talking about LC 8.1.10 which gives me the choice of building a
32-bit Mac app or a 64-bit app ('experimental'):
currently, at least, I am ONLY building a 32-bit build for Mac.
I wasn't at the Mac when I wrote (I shouldn't do t
@Brian Milby
Something just clicked... if fullscreenmode is not empty, then resizestack
messages are not generated.
You are right! No "fillscreenmode" and 14 line of code works on iPhone.
But on not my Pixel.
--
# Geometry
on preOpenCard
resizeStack the width of thi
I'm talking about LC 8.1.10 which gives me the choice of building a
32-bit Mac app or a 64-bit app ('experimental'):
currently, at least, I am ONLY building a 32-bit build for Mac.
Richmond.
On 19/8/2018 8:33 pm, J. Landman Gay via use-livecode wrote:
If I remember right, LC now always builds f
Once upon a time there was an idea floating around that the programmer
could choose,
via the standalone settings stack, what components to include, and what
not to . . . .
. . . the 'guff' for Unicode, the widget stuff, and so on.
This never materialised.
From my point of view, when I build
If I remember right, LC now always builds for 64 bit. If you also want to
support 32 bit, it adds that to the build, which approximately doubles the
size.
--
Jacqueline Landman Gay | jac...@hyperactivesw.com
HyperActive Software | http://www.hyperactivesw.com
On August 19, 2018 5:07:57 AM Richm
i dunno if this is still an ssue..but in previous versions. the
standalones were bloated because of CEF.
https://quality.livecode.com/show_bug.cgi?id=20339
On Sun, Aug 19, 2018 at 6:06 AM, Richmond Mathewson via use-livecode <
use-livecode@lists.runrev.com> wrote:
> 32-bit Mac.
>
> Richmon
On 08/19/2018 07:55 AM, Douglas Ruisaard via use-livecode wrote:
Thanks, Mark .. but "the result" returns NOTHING in either a distorted Google or local call..
Yeah, that's exactly the point. Until that gets fixed you're SOL.
Your only option is not to put an invalid url in there.
--
Mark Wiede
Thanks, Mark .. but "the result" returns NOTHING in either a distorted Google
or local call.. BOTH of which are, indeed, DNS "errors" not strictly "socket"
errors... thanks for that insight!
I'll go back to using tsnet for this other project. I can time it out and use
send" a dummy request to
If you just want the controls to have the same relative position/size, then the
GM can handle this. If you want to change metrics based on portrait/landscape
then you either need to add PM or write a custom resize handler that takes
orientation into account. My code above should work for the fir
On 8/18/18 8:46 AM, Richard Gaskin via use-livecode wrote:
> With LC's logical pixels, have total control over our layouts to make
> optimal use of every precious pixel on small screens, all with no more
> work than we've already become accustomed to after years of scripting
> for resizable wind
32-bit Mac.
Richmond.
On 19/8/2018 12:15 pm, Peter Bogdanoff via use-livecode wrote:
Hi Richmond,
In the standalone settings, are you building for both 32-bit and 64-bit?
Peter
On Aug 19, 2018, at 1:48 AM, Richmond Mathewson via use-livecode
wrote:
I ran off a series of standalones to d
Hi Richmond,
In the standalone settings, are you building for both 32-bit and 64-bit?
Peter
> On Aug 19, 2018, at 1:48 AM, Richmond Mathewson via use-livecode
> wrote:
>
> I ran off a series of standalones to day: Mac, Win, Linux 32 and Linux 64 and
> they ended up as these sizes, respectiv
I ran off a series of standalones to day: Mac, Win, Linux 32 and Linux
64 and they ended up as these sizes, respectively:
146.6 MB, 72.4 MB, 75.6 MB, 75.9 MB
Can anyone tell me why the Macintosh standalone is about twice the size
of all the others
[leaving aside remarks about the late Steve Jo
32 matches
Mail list logo
