New groups bugaBoo

[DunbarX at aol.com]

Malte.

No. Believe me, I wish it did.

Layers and numbers are scrambled. At least one other person concurs. No 
nested groups. No errant settings. 

If I group, in succession, five objects, the resulting numbers of the five 
new groups are not "1,2,3,4,5", but rather, (let me look at my latest run) 
"1,5,3,2,4". The layers are not "6,7,8,9,10" as they ought to be, since five 
objects existed first, but rather "1,10.5.3.8". So even the original objects 
are reordered in layer.

Again, I found this only because I was extracting the "last" group every 
time I created one. I always got a list that made no sense. The process is 
random, though there are a few unstable trends.

This is not, thank heaven, an issue with objects, only with groups. Um, I 
know groups are objects.

Craig Newman

In a message dated 5/22/09 4:57:39 AM, revolution at derbrill.de writes:

> The last keyword will always reference the group with the highest 
> layer. So if you have nested groups this might fail, or if you set the 
> layer property of the group of course.
> 
> Hth,
> 




**************
Recession-proof vacation ideas.  Find free things to do in 
the U.S. 
(http://travel.aol.com/travel-ideas/domestic/national-tourism-week?ncid=emlcntustrav00000002)