Copy image to another card

[SEAL29]

So far I have come:

Code: Select all

copy image "pic1" to card 3

But the position and rect is the same as source, how can i modify position or rect on card 3?
I tried this, but move the image on card 2 the new position

Code: Select all

copy image "pic1" to card 3
set the rect image "pic1" to "1203,174,1914,574"

[Klaus]

Hi SEAL29,

you are almost there

Code: Select all

...
copy image "pic1" to card 3
## Now you are still on the SAME card, so you need to specify the correct ADDRESS of the image you want to modify:
set the rect OF image "pic1" OF CD 3 to "1203,174,1914,574"
## If that is what you mean.
...

Best

Klaus

[SEAL29]

Meanwhile I solved it, not as elegant as yours, but it works and you can even specify the location in the meantime.

Code: Select all

on mouseUp
   copy of image "pic1" to card 3
   go to card 3
   ask "Position:"
   put it into tNumber
   if the result = "cancel" then
      exit to top
   end if
   set the rect image "pic1" to tNumber
end mouseUp

[Klaus]

Hey, that's cheating!

But OF at the wrong position!

Code: Select all

on mouseUp
  ##  copy of image "pic1" to card 3
  copy image "pic1" to card 3
   go to card 3
   ask "Position:"
   put it into tNumber
   if the result = "cancel" then
      exit to top
   end if
  ## set the rect image "pic1" to tNumber
   set the rect OF image "pic1" to tNumber
end mouseUp

I am a bit picky in this respect, because, although it works currently, every new version of the LC engine is less forgiving with "sloppy" syntax! Believe me, I have been bitten by this fact several times in the last 21 years, and I have learned from that experience.

[dunbarx]

Listen to Klaus about being careful with syntax. LC, like Hypercard before it, thought that forgiving syntax would make users feel more comfortable.

It did.

But LC has moved more into the mainstream, and this sort of looseness is becoming untenable.

Anyway, it is very useful to know that you can do anything you want to on other cards, or even cards on other stacks, WITHOUT actually navigating there. That is what was really important in what he suggested.

Craig

[richmond62]

this sort of looseness is becoming untenable

To an extent.

There always seems to be at least 2 ways to achieve anything in LiveCode, and often many more: which is fantastic.

[FourthWorld]

this sort of looseness is becoming untenable

To an extent.

There always seems to be at least 2 ways to achieve anything in LiveCode, and often many more: which is fantastic.

Algorithmic flexibility is very valuable. One should be able to consider many different ways to solve a given problem, as we'd expect in any good language.

Syntactic flexibility seems less useful, possibly counterproductive. Having multiple ways to express the same algorithm just adds noise to the mastery-acuisition process.

[richmond62]

That's exactly what my narrow-minded Chemistry teacher said about titration calculations 42 years ago.

At University the Professor (when I asked her) said that 'how one got to the result' didn't matter as long
as the result was capable of being arrived at via a different route.

(x * x) = x^2

[dunbarx]

Syntactic flexibility seems less useful, possibly counterproductive. Having multiple ways to express the same algorithm just adds noise to the mastery-acuisition process.

I am with you 100%. Back in the (HC) day I selected, or rather my brain selected, (not the same thing) one version of each syntactical option. For example, describing a function given the "the" way or the "()" way. Never deviated. If there had been only one, I would still not have deviated.

Craig

[richmond62]

I think I have been traumatised by FORTRAN IV.