jimaultwins at yahoo.com
Tue Jan 5 17:12:04 CST 2010
Rather than worry about maximums and future changes that could hamper
performance, why not make several smaller groups that 'overlap' in a
collage of sorts, then move all the groups as one?
Maybe I am missing the point, so let me know.
On Jan 5, 2010, at 11:22 AM, Fred Moyer wrote:
> The Stack Inspector states that the default maximum width of a stack
> is 65535. However, on my Mac I can't set the width of a stack to
> greater than 32767 pixels (half of 65534.) Similarly, on page 49 of
> the User's guide, the "Maximum size of an object" is given as
> "Unlimited". But I can't set the width of an object to greater than
> What is bizarre is that I can make a control 65534 pixels wide by
> making the rect of the control (for example) -32767, 10, 32767,100.
> However, if I try to make the rect of the stack "-32767, 10,
> 32767,100" Revolution crashes or resizes to a seemingly random rect.
> Are these stated limits actually incorrect or am I misunderstanding
> something? Does it work correctly in Windows (maybe this is a Mac
> problem)? Does anyone know a workaround to that 32767 limit? And out
> of curiosity, what is the significance of that number? Will it soon/
> ever change?
> I am designing a stack that consists of a single normal-sized card
> that contains a normal-sized group whose lockloc is set to true. The
> group contains many images placed side-by-side next to one another.
> One can scroll to any picture almost instantly by using the group's
> HScrollbar. This stack is great but sometimes there are so many
> images in the group that the formattedwidth of the group is greater
> than 32768 -- or would be, but I can't get to that point while
> setting up the stack. All kinds of strange things happen.
> Incidentally 65535 would be wide enough to accommodate my needs, so
> if Revolution simply worked as stated, it would be fine. Any ideas/
More information about the use-livecode