Cheesed off by 32xxx
Richmond Mathewson
richmondmathewson at gmail.com
Sun Apr 2 13:07:06 EDT 2017
On 4/2/17 7:01 pm, Curry Kenworthy via use-livecode wrote:
>
> Howdy Richmond,
>
> Wise man do many things with few buttons.
Yup: only one problem there . . . I prefer zippers!
> Elite master use single field.
Difficult when you have to make sure the bull doesn't get in with the cows.
> That is the true path to LC enlightenment, avoiding all unnecessary
> sorrows in coding and interface.
Yes, Master Sensei, I bow so low my nose scrapes the underside of my iMac.
>
> Having said that, you specifically asked for a way to circumvent the
> 32k pixel limitation for positioning. That should be possible. (And
> doubly worth mentioning because it could apply to other situations
> with fewer, but larger, controls.)
>
> If you split the 1600 controls into two groups rather than one, and
> add a little special code to swap them smoothly while scrolling....
>
> Thus you would never need 8703 buttons on top of each other.
The problem, such as it is, is that the Unicode specifications have 128
* 8703 slots for glyphs (= a big number my mind cannot cope with)
and the display in my "CHAR REF" stack is set up to cope with 128 glyphs
a go: hence 8703 buttons.
Of course I could be racist and leave out the Chinese ideograph slots (=
about 70%) . . .
> However, the same is true of the 1600 or the 800. It's a fun exercise
> and a great test of LC's limits
I wonder if that limit is "cast in stone" or the Livecode people could
expand it?
> and performance, but a different approach will be more efficient.
Probably, but after my first beige G3 Mac (1998) everything has always
gone quite fast enough for me.
>
> Very nice topic for an app, I love Unicode tables! Very handy.
Indeed.
>
> Best wishes,
>
> Curry K.
>
Best, Richmond.
More information about the use-livecode
mailing list