Group conundrum?

[Jim Ault]

I think the logic is that moving a group to a layer under an item says that
it will consider that item to be the new parent.

On 9/17/08 8:12 PM, "Chipp Walters" <chipp at chipp.com> wrote:

> 
> 1          group "food"
> 2              group "meat"
> 3                 button "chicken"
> 4                 button "beef"
> 5              group "fruit"
> 6                 button "apple"
> 7                 button "orange"
> 8              button "fred"


A couple years ago I did something like

1          group "food"
2             button "spacer1"  --invisible
3              group "meat"
4                 button "chicken"
5                 button "beef"
6             button "spacer2"  --invisible
7              group "fruit"
8                 button "apple"
9                 button "orange"
10             button "spacer3"  --invisible
11             button "fred"

and moved the groups to a
layer (layer of btn spacer2 + 1)
layer (layer of btn spacer3 + 1)
etc, to avoid the re-parenting that seemed to be counter-intuitive.

Try it and see if this helps get you where you want to go quickly.
Instead of spacer2, you could call it 'gridline2'

Adding another level of hierarchy might mean
spacer1, spacer11, spacer21, spacer33, etc. sorta like a matrix notation.

layer (layer of btn spacer21 + 1)

Jim Ault
Las Vegas