Some things about backgrounds i never knew

[David Bovill]

OK - it's morning and I still don't get it.

In my simple test stack, I have 3 groups and 3 cards. One of the groups
(group "Inner") is inside another, and both top level groups (group "First
background" and group "Second Nested Background") are on the first card and
the last card, all though they have had their background behavior set to
false.

The following are all true:

   - put the backgroundnames of this stack = empty
   - put the number of bgs of this stack = 2
   - put the short name of background 1 of this stack = "First background"
   - put the short name of background 2 of this stack = "Inner"

It makes no sense that "the backgroundnames" is empty and the number of bgs
= 2. It also makes no sense that the second bg is not the second top level
group that is shared across several cards, but is an inner "group" of a
nested background.

Can anyone make sense of this? I'm sure a bug like this would have been
spotted before?

On 30 December 2010 00:02, David Bovill <david at vaudevillecourt.tv> wrote:

> Now I'm lost...
>
> You can even create backgrounds that are (almost) impossible to detect. If
> you create a top level group called "Hidden background" and then "remove" it
> from the card - it will appear in the backgroundids / backgroundnames of the
> stack even though it is not visible on any cards.
>
> However if you then:
>
> set the backgroundbehavior of bg "Hidden background" to false
>
> it will not only not be visible, it won't show up in the 'backgroundids /
> backgroundnames of the stack".
>
> Looping through each background number by using "the number of backgrounds
> of stack" gives a completely different result, which at the moment is making
> no sense... for instance I have go a test stack with two shared groups -
> both of which I've turned off the backgroundbehavior (so the backgroundnames
> is empty) - no bg 1 of stack is the first group, but bg 2 of stack is an
> inner group and not the second shared group.... maybe it will make sense in
> the morning....
>