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