True on all accounts. When RunRev first introduced the feature, that was one of the first questions asked: why are points relative to the card and not the object? I don't recall ever hearing an official answer. It's kind of a PITA because copying a gradient from one object to another requires some hoop jumping to figure out the relative point locations.
On the other hand, one benefit of having gradient points card based is it allows you to easily spread a gradient across multiple objects by setting the gradient of all objects to the same gradient points. This creates the illusion of a gradient applied to one complex object when it is really composed of several objects. Regards, Scott Rossi Creative Director Tactile Media, UX Design On 3/9/13 12:52 AM, "Monte Goulding" <mo...@sweattechnologies.com> wrote: > >On 09/03/2013, at 7:34 PM, Scott Rossi <sc...@tactilemedia.com> wrote: > >> Point locations are relative to card. > >I kind of worked that out. What I don't understand is why given there's a >portable option of points being relative to the loc of the object just >like markerPoints are relative to the loc of the point. I guess though >I'd only get that kind of detail from RunRev. Either way it seems to me >that the fact that it's relative to the card should be noted in the docs. > >I do realise I would have had a faster response here but there is a >method to my madness ;-) > >Thanks > >-- >Monte Goulding > >M E R Goulding - software development services >mergExt - There's an external for that! > > > > > >_______________________________________________ >use-livecode mailing list >use-livecode@lists.runrev.com >Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your >subscription preferences: >http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode > _______________________________________________ use-livecode mailing list use-livecode@lists.runrev.com Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription preferences: http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode
