Mailing List Archive: 49091 messages
  • Home
  • Script library
  • AltME Archive
  • Mailing list
  • Articles Index
  • Site search
 

Text field mysteries

 [1/3] from: henrik::webz::dk at: 26-Apr-2004 14:05


Hi, all I'm creating a text field which will display in a different color with the text "Required!" for an address form. The code: view layout [ name-field: field [ either any [ 0 = length? name-field/text equal? name-field/text "Required!" ][ name-field/text: "Required!" probe name-field/text ; shows up blank sometimes! name-field/colors/1: 255.150.50 ][ name-field/colors/1: 240.240.240 name-field/font/color: black ] show name-field ] ] When run, "Required!" is supposed to be displayed after you've skipped through the field, but forgot to enter information. This works, if the you don't enter anything and the field isn't dirty?. When you enter something, that'll be displayed in the correct color, but if you delete it again, I want "Required!" to be displayed again, but only the color is correct, the field is blank. Probing name-field/text gives "" just after I've set it in the code. If I escape and do a name-field/text: "Required!" show name-field manually, "Required!" shows fine. The behavior matches the contents of the dirty? flag, but if I set it to none, the behaviour stil continues. What's wrong? -- Regards, Henrik Mikael Kristensen

 [2/3] from: ptretter:charter at: 26-Apr-2004 8:20


Use 'Copy. Heres your same layout using 'COPY instead. Hope that is what you were talking about. ----------------------------------------------------------------- view layout [ name-field: field [ either any [ 0 = length? name-field/text equal? name-field/text "Required!" ][ name-field/text: copy "Required!" probe name-field/text ; shows up blank sometimes! name-field/colors/1: 255.150.50 ][ name-field/colors/1: 240.240.240 name-field/font/color: black ] show name-field ] ]

 [3/3] from: henrik:webz:dk at: 26-Apr-2004 16:51


Paul Tretter wrote:
> Use 'Copy. > > Heres your same layout using 'COPY instead. Hope that is what you were > talking about.
Damn... I fell for the old copy trick. :-) Works now. -- Regards, Henrik Mikael Kristensen