rectangle of 0,0,0,0 ok?

[Doug Lerner]

On 1/19/04 6:36 AM, "Ken Norris" <pixelbird at interisland.net> wrote:

> on 1/18/04 8:06 AM, use-revolution-request at lists.runrev.com at
> use-revolution-request at lists.runrev.com wrote:
> 
>> Date: Sun, 18 Jan 2004 19:08:32 +0900
>> From: Doug Lerner <doug at webcrossing.com>
>> Subject: Re: rectangle of 0,0,0,0 ok?
>> 
>> Those don't truly *hide* the field, in the sense that if you check to see if
>> the mouse is in the region of the field it still turns out to be true, even
>> if the field is not visible.
> ----------
> That's usually a _good_ thing, but we don't know what your usage is. If you
> could explain that it might help.

Well, I am doing a check to see if the cursor is in the range of that field
or not and when it is "hidden" I don't want the check to succeed.

> 
> IMO setting the rect like that might be a bad idea. Instead, just leave it's
> width and height alone, and send it off screen by its loc:
> 
> 1) ## Remember it's loc:
>  global gTfld
>  put the loc of fld n into gTFld
> 
> 2) ## Send it offstack:
>  set the loc of fld n to "-1000,-1000" If its wider than 1500 (hard to
>  imagine) then increase the negative numbers
> 
> 3) ## Call it back:
>  global gTfld
>  set the loc of fld n to gTFld

Why is that better than changing the rect? Is there a technical reason that
is better?

Thanks!

doug