On 4/2/17 7:01 pm, Curry Kenworthy via use-livecode wrote:
Howdy Richmond,
Wise man do many things with few buttons.
Yup: only one problem there . . . I prefer zippers!
Elite master use single field.
Difficult when you have to make sure the bull doesn't get in with the cows.
That is the true path to LC enlightenment, avoiding all unnecessary
sorrows in coding and interface.
Yes, Master Sensei, I bow so low my nose scrapes the underside of my iMac.
Having said that, you specifically asked for a way to circumvent the
32k pixel limitation for positioning. That should be possible. (And
doubly worth mentioning because it could apply to other situations
with fewer, but larger, controls.)
If you split the 1600 controls into two groups rather than one, and
add a little special code to swap them smoothly while scrolling....
Thus you would never need 8703 buttons on top of each other.
The problem, such as it is, is that the Unicode specifications have 128
* 8703 slots for glyphs (= a big number my mind cannot cope with)
and the display in my "CHAR REF" stack is set up to cope with 128 glyphs
a go: hence 8703 buttons.
Of course I could be racist and leave out the Chinese ideograph slots (=
about 70%) . . .
However, the same is true of the 1600 or the 800. It's a fun exercise
and a great test of LC's limits
I wonder if that limit is "cast in stone" or the Livecode people could
expand it?
and performance, but a different approach will be more efficient.
Probably, but after my first beige G3 Mac (1998) everything has always
gone quite fast enough for me.
Very nice topic for an app, I love Unicode tables! Very handy.
Indeed.
Best wishes,
Curry K.
Best, Richmond.
_______________________________________________
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
