Layers in PBrowser
Sean Cole (Pi)
sean at pidigital.co.uk
Fri Aug 14 21:10:39 EDT 2020
Oh, just to summarize the issue:
If an object you wish to move between group layers is on the root of the
card it is not a problem. As soon as all of those layers (groups and
objects) get nested into a group, that's when things start bouncing
around and not going where you want them.
So, thinking about it, this is actually more likely an IDE issue and a bug
rather than an Engine problem with backwards compatibility side-effects.
Here's the main script:
Line 2121 >> 2302
By the look of line 870, Layers were going to be addressed but never saw
the light of day. It gets declared but never used.
And, of course, we have the raw:
Awww, and I love this comment at the top of this file btw:
This library has been added as a stopgap in order to prevent errors which
> occur because
of interactions between the old project browser and binary stacks which
> otherwise could
only be fixed by forking the binary stack for the 8.0 IDE.
5 effing years ago -- ;D LMAO
Ali did this bug fix, supposedly, back in Apr2016, which is second to the
last commit in Aug2016!:
Because it's part of the binary where he did the (non-) 'fix', there's no
way of seeing what he did. Only the behaviour had been scriptified way back
in 2015. All the rest is held either in other behaviour scripts or the
Stack object scripts which is where it gets exceedingly messy.
This one seems interesting for the drag-drop part, after line 420:
That's my homework assignment for you. See what you can faff with. For what
'Don't try to think outside the box. Just remember the truth: There is no
'For then you realise it is not the box you are trying to look outside of,
but it is yourself!'
eMail Ts & Cs <http://pidigital.co.uk/emailTCs.rtf> Pi Digital
Productions Ltd is a UK registered limited company, no. 5255609
On Sat, 15 Aug 2020 at 01:25, Sean Cole (Pi) <sean at pidigital.co.uk> wrote:
> Thanks Richard, Brian and Mark.
> Now that the rush is over I can breathe and try to work this out, again,
> to make it simple for even simpletons to understand! ;) It is, as said
> before, an issue that has been an issue for 6 years, gets poo-poo'd and
> ignored along with the plethora of other fundamental issues in favour of
> adding new features that get partially completed and stupid expensive $500
> plugins no one will buy!
> I've tried it on Linux, Windoze and MacOS. This is created in LC9.6.0
> Stable. Not from a binary or an old version (thanks for the suggestion,
> Brian, but I was working on a brand new, quick turn-around project - 3 days
> to produce a fully working TV Gameshow onscreen graphics application from
> _**scratch**_ - LC rocks when it's not complete turd!),
> If it's, as Jacque infers, down to how layers are handled then it's
> probably an Engine thing. Indeed, Mark at LC does indeed infer this too in
> one of the bug reports. As Richard says, this could produce Backwards
> Compatibility issues. But I never understand why that should stop it from
> being fixed. The 'just the way it is' card should NEVER prevent progress
> and improvement. The old engines and versions still exist and can be used
> until the old apps are brought up to date. Old code and methods are often
> deprecated in our business in all languages. So why not improve, ney, FIX
> the g-damned dysfunctional layering? Pathetic excuses, that's why!
> I've looked through all of the IDE code and it's a serious mess! Much like
> the stupid dictionary browser that's got itself stuck in the 1950s somehow.
> I think Turing had something to do with it. :/ But, as Mark at AHS
> mentioned, even if I did find a fix and offered it, because it's a binary
> it cant be easily posted up on Github and LC seem to have gone to the
> isolation ward since lockdown (and about 6mths before as well). Our very
> breath here is wasted because, as is noted by the lack of noise from LC
> despite their chipping in on other conversations on this forum, PB is not a
> subject LC are even remotely interested in. Based on the volley of issues
> on Bugzilla I cherry-picked from related to PB not working, barely any have
> been touched in the last 6yrs despite being confirmed.
> HTML5 deployment is abandonware (I'm going to have to ask for a refund
> on my two three year licences for it after all the failed promises of it
> NOT being abandonware). Project Browser is abandonware. Widgets and the LC
> marketplace, abandonware. Script editor, Abandonware. Monte's mergext
> suite, practically abandonware. LCFM Native, definitely abandonware (
> https://quality.livecode.com/buglist.cgi?quicksearch=lcfm) for all the
> money they fed into that amazing waste of time. LC itself?? Heading that
> Sean Cole
> *Pi Digital *
> On Sat, 15 Aug 2020 at 00:16, Mark Wieder via use-livecode <
> use-livecode at lists.runrev.com> wrote:
>> On 8/14/20 3:33 PM, Brian Milby via use-livecode wrote:
>> > If I can get a stack that demonstrates the issue, I would like to poke
>> around and see if anything jumps out. If it is engine level, it is
>> probably a bit out of my lane (although I have contributed a few lines of
>> C++). If it is IDE I may have a better chance.
>> I'm pretty sure this is IDE-level and not in the engine. But I've stuck
>> my toe into the PB pool before and I'm not inclined to go there again.
>> Plus at the rate my pull requests get ignored I'm not very motivated to
>> try to fix things.
>> Mark Wieder
>> ahsoftware at gmail.com
>> use-livecode mailing list
>> use-livecode at lists.runrev.com
>> Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your
>> subscription preferences:
More information about the use-livecode