Re: [Swftools-common] Actionscript acting stupid...

[Chris]

On Fri, 28 Jan 2011 09:49:11 +0000
John Sullivan <address@hidden> wrote:

> On Thursday, January 27, 2011, 5:07:32 AM, Chris Pugh wrote:
> >>John Sullivan <address@hidden> wrote:
> >> [.put on an .swf creates a new movieclip]
> >> .put on an image doesn't, which means the three cherries are
> >> then not independently placeable.
 
> > If that were strictly true, then surely something like this:
> >[snip code] shouldn't work?  But it does.
> 
> But it doesn't ;-)

I think you misunderstood me slightly there John.  What I said was
that it *SHOULDN'T* work, i.e. it doesn't really make sense.

An swf is a movieclip.  An image isn't, and thus when .put is used
on the latter the result is an Object embedded inside a movieclip,
in this case _root.  ._x and ._y and other properties work on movieclips not 
objects.

I see only two ways of making them act independently..

1. Stick with swfc script, in which case you can use the .del
   command to remove the objects and replace them in different
   positions beofre re-putting. The actionscript 'delete' doesn't
   work on the .put objects,  nor does the alternative boolean
   form compile swfc.

2. Do the usual actionscript thing, and load the images into
   dynamically created clips, which can then be manipulated
   independently.

> Not only that but moving a movieclip has the effect of moving
> all child movieclips relative to it..
>..

While that is for the most part true, the converse isn't.  The
movieclips apparently constrained by the outer clip, or relative
to it, can move independently.  See attached example: squares.bz2

Regards,



Chris.
-- 
Chris <address@hidden>

squares.bz2
Description: Binary data