Surely it should give the right result with Carbon and Appearance Compliant
set. I get 1 1 0 not the correct 2 1 0.

It only gives the right result with cpuPPC and Appearance Compliant.

This means the Button function is virtually useless.

Incidentally, framing seems to have disappeared with Appearance Manager. The
following line of code no longer provides a framed field

edit field 1,"Framed",(310,10)-(400,40),_statFramed

Rod Steel

>> 
>> I am having some problems with the BUTTON function.
>> 
>> Depending upon the compiler options, cpuPPC/Carbon, Standard/Appearance
>> Compliant, BUTTON gives different results. See code below:
>> 
>> 
>> WINDOW #1,"Test",(0,0)-(500,500),_docNoGrow
>> 
>> button 1,_markedBtn,"marked",(10,10)-(100,40),_push
>> button 2,_activeBtn,"active",(110,10)-(200,40),_push
>> button 3,_grayBtn,"gray",(210,10)-(300,40),_push
>> print :print :print :print
>> print button(1),button(2),button(3)
>> 
>> print :print :print :delay 5000
>> 
>> 
>> I'd appreciate a bit of help. Is this something documented that I should
>> have found on my own?
>> 
> 
> Yes, it's different. But it has to be that way.
> 
> You'll note that the appearance runtime does things correctly. We wanted to
> leave some of the bad things behind when we built it. (RP was the king pin
> on that project and did an excellent job.) but we could not change the fbII
> emulation because it has been wrong for years.
> 
> And dat's da name of dat tune.
> -STAZ  ~)~ 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> --
> To unsubscribe, send ANY message to <futurebasic-unsubscribe@...>
>