Why are locking size and position treated as one?
mdswindell at cruzio.com
Fri Feb 5 14:49:55 CST 2010
Thanks Devin. I gave it some votes and added a plea for a change. Looks like the report has languished since 2005, v. 2.5. Perhaps others can add to it.
On Feb 5, 2010, at 9:52 AM, Devin Asay wrote:
> On Feb 5, 2010, at 8:35 AM, Mark Swindell wrote:
>> I asked this a couple of days ago and got no response so I thought I'd try again.
>> Why are locking size and position of an image inextricably linked? They seem to me to be two separate entities. I know how to get around the situation via script, but I don't know why there should be the inconvenience of having to "get around" anything. Is there a good reason for this or is it just a legacy reality that could be changed? Why not be able to drag an image around whose size is constrained?
> There is a long-standing enhancement request on this:
> Devin Asay
> Humanities Technology and Research Support Center
> Brigham Young University
> use-revolution mailing list
> use-revolution at lists.runrev.com
> Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription preferences:
More information about the use-livecode