Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!cs.utexas.edu!swrinde!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!wuarchive!decwrl!shlump.nac.dec.com!shodha.dec.com!elvira!ridder
From: ridder@elvira.enet.dec.com (Hans Ridder)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.tech
Subject: Re: Mutual Exclude Gadgets
Message-ID: <559@shodha.dec.com>
Date: 31 Dec 89 17:13:59 GMT
References: <22900@ut-emx.UUCP> <897@doctor.Tymnet.COM>
Sender: news@shodha.dec.com
Organization: Digital Equipment Corporation, Customer Support Center
Lines: 18

In article <897@doctor.Tymnet.COM> jms@tardis.Tymnet.COM (Joe Smith) writes:
>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.
>
>"Which bit is assigned to my first gadget?", since without this information
>there is no way to set the proper bit in the bitmask.

No, you missed it.  His idea was to remove the "positional" meaning of
the bits altogether.  Go back and re-read his posting, it's a good
idea (with one limitation I already posted about).

-hans
========================================================================
  Hans-Gabriel Ridder			Digital Equipment Corporation
  ridder@elvira.enet.dec.com		Customer Support Center
  ...decwrl!elvira.enet!ridder		Colorado Springs, CO