Hi, all. Looking at this thread together with the prior thread, it seems
developers ought to choose what they want from the library, and register for
updates. A developer could use a shopping cart, a shopping assistant, and a
shopping list. (Here are the top downloads... Developers that chose this
library also chose that library.) Are there Rev apps for shopping already?
Or could the community create the functionality for the library, and include
it the library?
Imagine lots more contributors and contributions. How do the moderators
decide what to accept and reject?
-- Dick


On 9/28/08 2:13 PM, "Thomas McGrath III" <mcgrath3@...> wrote:

>
>
>
> I'm all for two libraries. A Utility library might interest more than
> a few people if it provided enough utilities.
>
> Tom McGrath
>
> On Sep 26, 2008, at 5:01 PM, Robert Brenstein wrote:
>
>> > On 26/09/08 at 14:35 -0500 Chipp Walters apparently wrote:
>>> > >Richard,
>>> > >After you asked that, I got to thinking why would I want this
>> > function in
>>> > >stdLib? And in all the years of using Rev, I have never had the
>> > need to
>>> > >use "isStackCurrentlyVisibleOnAnyMonitor."
>>> > >
>>> > >So, I'm not sure clogging up stdLib with it is a good idea. That
>> > said, I
>>> > >suppose if one saves window positions from launch to launch, it
>> > could come
>>> > >in handy to make sure the display config hasn't changed and a
>> > window is
>>> > >positioned 'off screen.' I know for instance the 3.0 Rev IDE could
>> > use it as
>>> > >sometimes the Rev Help stack get's positioned off screen (after a
>> > crash)>
>>> > >They should check any IDE stacks'
>> > "isStackCurrentlyVisibleOnAnyMonitor" when
>>> > >opening it.
>>> > >
>>> > >In anycase, please know it's fine with me if you don't include it.
>>> > >
>>> > >-Chipp
>> >
>> > May be we should consider having two libs, stdLib for commonly used
>> > stuff and utilLib for stuff needed sporadically or in special
>> > circumstances only. isStackCurrentlyVisibleOnAnyMonitor is indeed a
>> > candidate for the latter.
>> >
>> > Robert
>> >
>
>
>



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]