Clone graphic does not respect dimensions

Jeanne A. E. DeVoto revolution at
Thu Dec 1 11:38:15 EST 2016

At 7:39 AM -0800 12/1/2016, Richard Gaskin wrote:
>BNig wrote:
>>  Scott Rossi wrote
>>>  It's wrong but it's always been like this.  LC doesn't like graphics
>  >> smaller than 9 pixels.
>  >
>>  that is determined somewhat arbitrarily by the revBackScriptLibrary in
>>  handler
>>  on newGraphic
>>   if the width of the target < 9 and the height of the target < 9 then
>  >    .... use default values
>Would that be a user experience bug?
>What would be a good reason to prevent the user from doing a 
>reasonable action like this?
>If the size is explicitly set, why not let it remain so?

I expect this was done to prevent the case where someone:
1. chooses a graphic tool from the Tools palette
2. clicks to start dragging out the graphic
3. accidentally double-clicks instead and ends the graphic, resulting 
in an unintentionally-tiny graphic

It also lets you click once with a graphic tool to create a 
default-size graphic at that spot.

Perhaps newGraphic could test what tool is chosen, and change the 
size only if the tool is "graphic".

More information about the use-livecode mailing list