Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!mhuxt!houxm!whuxl!whuxlm!akgua!gatech!ut-sally!topaz!uwvax!uwmacc!dubois
From: dubois@uwmacc.UUCP
Newsgroups: net.micro.mac
Subject: Re: Creating Resources: ResEdit or RMaker?
Message-ID: <1960@uwmacc.UUCP>
Date: Fri, 7-Feb-86 10:51:11 EST
Article-I.D.: uwmacc.1960
Posted: Fri Feb  7 10:51:11 1986
Date-Received: Tue, 11-Feb-86 05:10:41 EST
References: <381@ucsbcsl.UUCP> <492@lzaz.UUCP> <1592@teklds.UUCP> <756@wang.UUCP>
Organization: UW-Madison Primate Center
Lines: 29


> I've found it substantially easier to whip up dialogs and alerts (and make
> them look right) with ResEdit than with RMaker.  But then I go and turn the
> results back into a .r file.  Why?  Because ResEdit doesn't provide any
> *direct* method of ordering the items in a DITL.  The order of items is
> critical in using a dialog which has many (>1) controls in it.  Using RMaker
> lets me be sure of that order.

I use ResEdit also, and agree with this assessment, except for the
statement that there's no capability for direct ordering.  What
do you mean by "direct"?   You can use "send to back" and "bring to
front" under the ditl menu.  Suppose I have items a, b, c, d, e, and f,
in that order, and I want to switch them to a, f, e, d, c, b.
I successively select and bring to front f, e, d, c and b, in that order.
(In the general case, selectings and bringing to front all items, in
the order desired, accomplishes the task.  But often one only wants
to rearrange some rightmost set.   If the items to be reordered
constitute a leftmost set of smaller size than the corresponding
rightmost set, then select in reverse order and use send to back instead.)

I don't find this a big problem, even for dialogs with upwards of twenty
items.  Other schemes, say, select an item and then specify its ordinal
position, would be more unwieldy overall, I think.

-- 
                                                                    |
Paul DuBois     {allegra,ihnp4,seismo}!uwvax!uwmacc!dubois        --+--
                                                                    |
...Nor do all agree on the definition of monophyly.                 |