Can You do this?
Moderators: FourthWorld, heatherlaine, Klaus, kevinmiller
-
- Livecode Opensource Backer
- Posts: 9454
- Joined: Fri Feb 19, 2010 10:17 am
- Location: Bulgaria
-
- Livecode Opensource Backer
- Posts: 9454
- Joined: Fri Feb 19, 2010 10:17 am
- Location: Bulgaria
Re: Can You do this?
Wow! Cowabunga; Text size:
- -
The 'difficulty' seems to be working out WHICH type of HTML code to use.
For instance:
Does NOT turn the text red.
And nor does this:
But this does:
-
- -
The 'difficulty' seems to be working out WHICH type of HTML code to use.
For instance:
Code: Select all
<p style="color:red;"><b><font size="32">Do you like this bunny?</font></b></p>
<p><img src="cony"></p>
And nor does this:
Code: Select all
<p style="color:#FF0000";><b><font size="32">Do you like this bunny?</font></b></p>
<p><img src="cony"></p>
Code: Select all
<p><b><font size="32" color="red">Do you like this bunny?</font></b></p>
<p><img src="cony"></p>
Re: Can You do this?
You really didn't read, or at least comprehend, my post, did you? I said "presented as modal"richmond62 wrote: ↑Sat May 11, 2024 7:59 amHowever, the 'problem' about using a substack as an answer palette is that it can get obscured by other substacks unless one is very careful.
If a stack is modal, no other stacks can be in front of it, and much like an answer dialog, it needs to be dismissed for the app to proceed.
So there is no benefit to misusing the answer dialog this way as far as I can see.
While Klaus' solution is great inasmuch as it answers your question, I would not recommend this for the purpose you describe.
You tie your hands behind your back with this approach because the entire layout has to be decided by the picture you display (i.e. you'll have to format every single picture for size/background/etc so the answer dialogs will always fit your app). You have no other control over coding or layout, whereas with a substack you can control everything and the coding, as mentioned, is trivial.
But hey, knock yourself out if you wan to do that, I really don't care.
I only make these comments to make it obvious there are other and (as far as I'm concerned) better ways of achieve the exact same result for those who may come across this thread, even if they manage to find it thanks to your opaque choice of title.
-
- Livecode Opensource Backer
- Posts: 9454
- Joined: Fri Feb 19, 2010 10:17 am
- Location: Bulgaria
Re: Can You do this?
Read it, and I comprehended it perfectly well, but as I was fixated on mucking around with the in-built ask and answer dialogues I brushed it aside.You really didn't read, or at least comprehend
I am both kinky and masochistic.You tie your hands behind your back
So?the entire layout has to be decided by the picture you display (i.e. you'll have to format every single picture for size/background/etc so the answer dialogs will always fit your app).
Either way I have to spend yonks b*ggering around with the settings.
Chacun à son goût, mon ami.
Re: Can You do this?
Like I said, I really could not care less what you choose to do.
I was just pointing out the error in your statement
I was just pointing out the error in your statement
which can never apply to modal stacks, and invalidates your argument.it can get obscured by other substacks unless one is very careful.
-
- Livecode Opensource Backer
- Posts: 9454
- Joined: Fri Feb 19, 2010 10:17 am
- Location: Bulgaria
Re: Can You do this?
You are right, that does invalidate that argument.
If one wants to be picky about logic.
- -
BUT, there is one thing that you forget about xTalk in general, and LiveCode more specifically, and that is that there is absolutely no reason to be dogmatic about almost everything, and that there is always more than one way to achieve anything, and the knowledge of the any ways to do things is an enriching experience.
Recently the idea of 'fuzzy logic' has taken root in various thinking minds.
And as an adherent to the theory of Cognitive Linguistics (c.f. my MA thesis on an important aspect of Prototypicality Theory [or, "Anti-Plato"]) I am wary of any categorical claims to what constitutes something and what does not.
An earlier love of mine (John Locke) entirely rejected the Platonic theory of forms and worked out a theory that everything was 100% empirical, unfortunately many, many people, not least myself, found that some empirical evidence showed (or 'shewed' as a lecturer of mine always put things) that everything coul not be empirical, but at least some of our knowledge had to come from elsewhere, whether intuition, divine revelation, or pre-programming in the infant brain . . .
------
Re Modal dialogue windows versus ask/answer 'things': 'Tain't worth the hot air, as I go to Scotland via the High road, and you go via the Low road.
If one wants to be picky about logic.
- -
BUT, there is one thing that you forget about xTalk in general, and LiveCode more specifically, and that is that there is absolutely no reason to be dogmatic about almost everything, and that there is always more than one way to achieve anything, and the knowledge of the any ways to do things is an enriching experience.
Recently the idea of 'fuzzy logic' has taken root in various thinking minds.
And as an adherent to the theory of Cognitive Linguistics (c.f. my MA thesis on an important aspect of Prototypicality Theory [or, "Anti-Plato"]) I am wary of any categorical claims to what constitutes something and what does not.
An earlier love of mine (John Locke) entirely rejected the Platonic theory of forms and worked out a theory that everything was 100% empirical, unfortunately many, many people, not least myself, found that some empirical evidence showed (or 'shewed' as a lecturer of mine always put things) that everything coul not be empirical, but at least some of our knowledge had to come from elsewhere, whether intuition, divine revelation, or pre-programming in the infant brain . . .
------
Re Modal dialogue windows versus ask/answer 'things': 'Tain't worth the hot air, as I go to Scotland via the High road, and you go via the Low road.
-
- Livecode Opensource Backer
- Posts: 9454
- Joined: Fri Feb 19, 2010 10:17 am
- Location: Bulgaria
Re: Can You do this?
If you don't care why did you bother to point something out.Like I said, I really could not care less what you choose to do.
I was just pointing out the error in your statement
I am perfectly capable of working out what's logical and what isn't.
Re: Can You do this?
Give it a rest.richmond62 wrote: ↑Sat May 11, 2024 1:47 pmIf you don't care why did you bother to point something out.
I'm pointing it out because it's not just about you. This is a public forum read by all, and every post here should be to show the best possible answer, to help all. If there is a better answer, I'm happy to be corrected, because that helps me and all that read the forum.
if you want to stab yourself in the eye go right ahead. But others may choose not to.
QEDrichmond62 wrote: ↑Sat May 11, 2024 1:47 pmI am perfectly capable of working out what's logical and what isn't.
-
- Livecode Opensource Backer
- Posts: 9454
- Joined: Fri Feb 19, 2010 10:17 am
- Location: Bulgaria
Re: Can You do this?
Ah, but in this case there is no best possible answer: there are several answers each with advantages.
-
- VIP Livecode Opensource Backer
- Posts: 9752
- Joined: Wed May 06, 2009 2:28 pm
- Location: New York, NY
Re: Can You do this?
Stam. Richard.
Stop.
Craig
Stop.
Craig
-
- Livecode Opensource Backer
- Posts: 9454
- Joined: Fri Feb 19, 2010 10:17 am
- Location: Bulgaria
Re: Can You do this?
Craij . . .
Who is 'Richard'?
Love and tickles, Richmond.
Who is 'Richard'?
Love and tickles, Richmond.
-
- VIP Livecode Opensource Backer
- Posts: 9752
- Joined: Wed May 06, 2009 2:28 pm
- Location: New York, NY
Re: Can You do this?
Richmond.
Rats. That is the third time in our long history I have done that, and the third time you have answered in exactly that way.
Could it be because I secretly want to be Richard Gaskin?
Craig
Rats. That is the third time in our long history I have done that, and the third time you have answered in exactly that way.
Could it be because I secretly want to be Richard Gaskin?
Craig