Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!uwm.edu!uakari.primate.wisc.edu!brutus.cs.uiuc.edu!apple!oliveb!tymix!doctor!jms
From: jms@doctor.Tymnet.COM (Joe Smith)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.tech
Subject: Re: Mutual Exclude Gadgets
Summary: Which gadget is assigned to bit #1
Message-ID: <897@doctor.Tymnet.COM>
Date: 31 Dec 89 05:10:20 GMT
References: <22900@ut-emx.UUCP>
Reply-To: jms@tardis.Tymnet.COM (Joe Smith)
Organization: BT Tymnet, San Jose, CA
Lines: 19

In article <22900@ut-emx.UUCP> hcobb@walt.cc.utexas.edu (Henry J. Cobb) writes:
>	Mr Sinz is right, the documented procedure would not work.  Why not use
>the field as a bit-map, whenever a gadget becomes selected any other gadgets
>with which it has a matching bit set, is deselected.

Before adding suggestions to "fixing" the mutual exclude "problem", you must
first answer the question "Why doesn't mutual exclude work with gadgets?".
To get some insight to the problem, one must first answer the question
"Which bit is assigned to my first gadget?", since without this information
there is no way to set the proper bit in the bitmask.

Right now, it appears that the number assigned to the first user gadget is
the first one after the numbers assigned to the system gadgets, and that
number can (and probably will) change in the next release.
-- 
Joe Smith (408)922-6220 | SMTP: JMS@F74.TYMNET.COM or jms@gemini.tymnet.com
BT Tymnet Tech Services | UUCP: ...!{ames,pyramid}!oliveb!tymix!tardis!jms
PO Box 49019, MS-D21    | PDP-10 support: My car's license plate is "POPJ P,"
San Jose, CA 95161-9019 | humorous dislaimer: "My Amiga speaks for me."