isStackCurrentlyVisibleOnAnyMonitor

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
8 messages Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

isStackCurrentlyVisibleOnAnyMonitor

Richard Gaskin
Chipp wrote a nifty and very complete handler for determining if a
stack is visible to the user, named "isStackCurrentlyVisibleOnAnyMonitor".

The handler was discussed on the use-rev list, and Robert Brenstein
suggested perhaps it might make a good addition to stdLib.rev.

Robert's post with the full handler by Chipp is here:

http://lists.runrev.com/pipermail/use-revolution/2008-September/115175.html

Chipp has granted permission for its inclusion in stdLib.rev, but
before we do that I thought I'd run it past you folks here for an
informal vote:  is this handler something you'd use often enough to
warrant inclusion in stdLib.rev?

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: isStackCurrentlyVisibleOnAnyMonitor

Chipp Walters
Richard,
After you asked that, I got to thinking why would I want this function in
stdLib? And in all the years of using Rev, I have never had the need to
use "isStackCurrentlyVisibleOnAnyMonitor."

So, I'm not sure clogging up stdLib with it is a good idea. That said, I
suppose if one saves window positions from launch to launch, it could come
in handy to make sure the display config hasn't changed and a window is
positioned 'off screen.' I know for instance the 3.0 Rev IDE could use it as
sometimes the Rev Help stack get's positioned off screen (after a crash)>
They should check any IDE stacks' "isStackCurrentlyVisibleOnAnyMonitor" when
opening it.

In anycase, please know it's fine with me if you don't include it.

-Chipp

On Fri, Sep 26, 2008 at 2:03 PM, Richard Gaskin
<[hidden email]>wrote:

> Chipp wrote a nifty and very complete handler for determining if a
> stack is visible to the user, named "isStackCurrentlyVisibleOnAnyMonitor".
>
> The handler was discussed on the use-rev list, and Robert Brenstein
> suggested perhaps it might make a good addition to stdLib.rev.
>
> Robert's post with the full handler by Chipp is here:
>
> http://lists.runrev.com/pipermail/use-revolution/2008-September/115175.html
>
> Chipp has granted permission for its inclusion in stdLib.rev, but
> before we do that I thought I'd run it past you folks here for an
> informal vote:  is this handler something you'd use often enough to
> warrant inclusion in stdLib.rev?
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: isStackCurrentlyVisibleOnAnyMonitor

Robert Brenstein-2
On 26/09/08 at 14:35 -0500 Chipp Walters apparently wrote:

>Richard,
>After you asked that, I got to thinking why would I want this function in
>stdLib? And in all the years of using Rev, I have never had the need to
>use "isStackCurrentlyVisibleOnAnyMonitor."
>
>So, I'm not sure clogging up stdLib with it is a good idea. That said, I
>suppose if one saves window positions from launch to launch, it could come
>in handy to make sure the display config hasn't changed and a window is
>positioned 'off screen.' I know for instance the 3.0 Rev IDE could use it as
>sometimes the Rev Help stack get's positioned off screen (after a crash)>
>They should check any IDE stacks' "isStackCurrentlyVisibleOnAnyMonitor" when
>opening it.
>
>In anycase, please know it's fine with me if you don't include it.
>
>-Chipp

May be we should consider having two libs, stdLib for commonly used
stuff and utilLib for stuff needed sporadically or in special
circumstances only. isStackCurrentlyVisibleOnAnyMonitor is indeed a
candidate for the latter.

Robert
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: isStackCurrentlyVisibleOnAnyMonitor

Tereza Snyder
In reply to this post by Richard Gaskin

On Sep 26, 2008, at 2:03 PM, Richard Gaskin wrote:

>  wrote a nifty and very complete handler for determining if a
> stack is visible to the user, named  
> "isStackCurrentlyVisibleOnAnyMonitor".



and Chipp said:

> After you asked that, I got to thinking why would I want this  
> function in
> stdLib? And in all the years of using Rev, I have never had the need  
> to
> use "isStackCurrentlyVisibleOnAnyMonitor."


Me neither. Though I can imagine—vaguely—a circumstance where I might  
want to. But then I'd probably also want to tweak it so that I would  
know which monitor the stack was visible on, or whether the stack was  
sufficiently visible (not a single corner pixel). So I'd vote "no" but  
the handler might be good inclusion for a "snippets" site.


t
------------------------------------

Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
    http://groups.yahoo.com/group/revInterop/

<*> Your email settings:
    Individual Email | Traditional

<*> To change settings online go to:
    http://groups.yahoo.com/group/revInterop/join
    (Yahoo! ID required)

<*> To change settings via email:
    mailto:[hidden email]
    mailto:[hidden email]

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
    [hidden email]

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
    http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: isStackCurrentlyVisibleOnAnyMonitor

Ken Ray
In reply to this post by Richard Gaskin

> Chipp has granted permission for its inclusion in stdLib.rev, but
> before we do that I thought I'd run it past you folks here for an
> informal vote:  is this handler something you'd use often enough to
> warrant inclusion in stdLib.rev?

I have a similar function I use called "isOnScreen" but I've only used it
for one project so far, so IMHO it's not something I'd use often enough for
stdLib.

Ken Ray
Sons of Thunder Software, Inc.
Email: [hidden email]
Web Site: http://www.sonsothunder.com/


Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: isStackCurrentlyVisibleOnAnyMonitor

mwieder
In reply to this post by Richard Gaskin
Richard-

Friday, September 26, 2008, 12:03:54 PM, you wrote:

> informal vote:  is this handler something you'd use often enough to
> warrant inclusion in stdLib.rev?

I don't really have an opinion about whether or not this should go
into the stdLib - I think it's a clever hack and I'd like to have it
stashed away somewhere, but I don't know if stdLib is the place.

But looking at the code got me to realize that I could use the
screenrects to solve another problem, so I've already benefitted from
this function, whether it's in stdLib or not. Thanks, Chipp.

--
-Mark Wieder
 [hidden email]

--
 Mark Wieder
 ahsoftware@gmail.com
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: isStackCurrentlyVisibleOnAnyMonitor

Thomas McGrath III-3
In reply to this post by Robert Brenstein-2
I'm all for two libraries. A Utility library might interest more than  
a few people if it provided enough utilities.

Tom McGrath

On Sep 26, 2008, at 5:01 PM, Robert Brenstein wrote:

> On 26/09/08 at 14:35 -0500 Chipp Walters apparently wrote:
> >Richard,
> >After you asked that, I got to thinking why would I want this  
> function in
> >stdLib? And in all the years of using Rev, I have never had the  
> need to
> >use "isStackCurrentlyVisibleOnAnyMonitor."
> >
> >So, I'm not sure clogging up stdLib with it is a good idea. That  
> said, I
> >suppose if one saves window positions from launch to launch, it  
> could come
> >in handy to make sure the display config hasn't changed and a  
> window is
> >positioned 'off screen.' I know for instance the 3.0 Rev IDE could  
> use it as
> >sometimes the Rev Help stack get's positioned off screen (after a  
> crash)>
> >They should check any IDE stacks'  
> "isStackCurrentlyVisibleOnAnyMonitor" when
> >opening it.
> >
> >In anycase, please know it's fine with me if you don't include it.
> >
> >-Chipp
>
> May be we should consider having two libs, stdLib for commonly used
> stuff and utilLib for stuff needed sporadically or in special
> circumstances only. isStackCurrentlyVisibleOnAnyMonitor is indeed a
> candidate for the latter.
>
> Robert
>

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: isStackCurrentlyVisibleOnAnyMonitor

Dick Kriesel
Hi, all.  Looking at this thread together with the prior thread, it seems
developers ought to choose what they want from the library, and register for
updates.  A developer could use a shopping cart, a shopping assistant, and a
shopping list.  (Here are the top downloads... Developers that chose this
library also chose that library.)  Are there Rev apps for shopping already?
Or could the community create the functionality for the library, and include
it the library?
Imagine lots more contributors and contributions.  How do the moderators
decide what to accept and reject?
-- Dick


On 9/28/08 2:13 PM, "Thomas McGrath III" <[hidden email]> wrote:

>  
>  
>
> I'm all for two libraries. A Utility library might interest more than
> a few people if it provided enough utilities.
>
> Tom McGrath
>
> On Sep 26, 2008, at 5:01 PM, Robert Brenstein wrote:
>
>> > On 26/09/08 at 14:35 -0500 Chipp Walters apparently wrote:
>>> > >Richard,
>>> > >After you asked that, I got to thinking why would I want this
>> > function in
>>> > >stdLib? And in all the years of using Rev, I have never had the
>> > need to
>>> > >use "isStackCurrentlyVisibleOnAnyMonitor."
>>> > >
>>> > >So, I'm not sure clogging up stdLib with it is a good idea. That
>> > said, I
>>> > >suppose if one saves window positions from launch to launch, it
>> > could come
>>> > >in handy to make sure the display config hasn't changed and a
>> > window is
>>> > >positioned 'off screen.' I know for instance the 3.0 Rev IDE could
>> > use it as
>>> > >sometimes the Rev Help stack get's positioned off screen (after a
>> > crash)>
>>> > >They should check any IDE stacks'
>> > "isStackCurrentlyVisibleOnAnyMonitor" when
>>> > >opening it.
>>> > >
>>> > >In anycase, please know it's fine with me if you don't include it.
>>> > >
>>> > >-Chipp
>> >
>> > May be we should consider having two libs, stdLib for commonly used
>> > stuff and utilLib for stuff needed sporadically or in special
>> > circumstances only. isStackCurrentlyVisibleOnAnyMonitor is indeed a
>> > candidate for the latter.
>> >
>> > Robert
>> >
>
>  
>    



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]