Hi all,
When a split bar is hidden, it is just defined from the designer/programmer to be useful for other presentation reason(s).
Could /should an hidden split bar, either horizontal or vertical, be defined 1px large instead of the default 4px?
Gianni
+3Hi all,
When a split bar is hidden, it is just defined from the designer/programmer to be useful for other presentation reason(s).
Could /should an hidden split bar, either horizontal or vertical, be defined 1px large instead of the default 4px?
Gianni
Hi Gianni
As such split bar is hidden at runtime, it should not matter wether it is 1px or 4px 🙂
Or did I miss something?
Ingo
Hi all,
When a split bar is hidden, it is just defined from the designer/programmer to be useful for other presentation reason(s).
Could /should an hidden split bar, either horizontal or vertical, be defined 1px large instead of the default 4px?
Gianni
Hi Ingo,
Correct! I was expecting what you've told but as of today it is NOT that way...and I did not find an alternative solution.
This is a reduced screenshot of my form implementing it at runtime:
The hidden split bar is defined at the bottom of 2nd row of cells, where the very thin redline is drawn.
The big field with light blue background it is defined one row lower but it is also "attached to top" and it is correctly extending up to the split bar.
The large field on top containing an "m" is defined attached to bottom and IMHO opinion should be extended few pixels more in the lower part.
This is how objects are picted into Uniface develoment:
IMHO those missing pixels in size for PATH field are the size of the split bar (4px).
I hope my description is detailed enough to let you understand.... 🙂
Any tip or trick is welcome here!
Regards,
Gianni
BTW: You can also see in the red oval the effective example I reported in the other post "[$tags on scalar member]".
Already have an account? Login
Enter your E-mail address. We'll send you an e-mail with instructions to reset your password.
77 4th Avenue
Waltham, MA 02451 USA
