finding & storing the field that *would* be next on closefield

[Dr. Hawkins]

On Sat, Oct 19, 2013 at 2:48 PM, <dunbarx at aol.com> wrote:

> "would have gone..."
>
>
> Do you mean the next field in tab order?
>

That's what makes it difficult:  tab order is easy (and Jacque's suggestion
takes what I've already done with the groups a step farther, and makes
sense).

But the "next" field could be one that got clicked it (use
mouseControl()?), or the use of an (anehanced) arrow key from the row above
it.

I would not ever design a stack where an object containing a running
> handler might be deleted, just on principle.
> Can't you move that process to a handler in the stack, using "send in
> time" if you want it delayed, as you said?
>

It already happens that way--you *can't* delete an object whose handler is
still running, even if it's just waiting for something it called to come
back.

But If I'm not sure of the order in which things will execute . . .


-- 
Dr. Richard E. Hawkins, Esq.
(702) 508-8462