NewsArchive
03-05-2005, 06:25 AM
[Friday, March 04, 2005 3:51 PM]
Not desperately important, but in the interests of usability could I
make a suggestion for SB 5.1...
I have an install script that has about 15 dialogs. All 15 are never
displayed, it depends on what else the user has installed, if this is an
upgrade etc,etc. The Show/Hide Wizard Dialog statement is used a lot in
this script.
I've just had to modify the script and in the process had to remove
dialog #3. Which meant that I've had to go through every Show/Hide
Wizard Dialog statement in the entire script and deduct 1 from any
dialog >3.
Would it be more useful to be able to assign a unique name to a dialog
in a future release. The Show/Hide dialog statement could then refer to
the name rather than the dialogs number in the script. If you leave a
show/hide for a dialog that's been deleted the compiler can throw an error.
This would also solve the problem where dialogs need to be re-arranged.
--
Simon Craythorn
InterVations, Inc
Not desperately important, but in the interests of usability could I
make a suggestion for SB 5.1...
I have an install script that has about 15 dialogs. All 15 are never
displayed, it depends on what else the user has installed, if this is an
upgrade etc,etc. The Show/Hide Wizard Dialog statement is used a lot in
this script.
I've just had to modify the script and in the process had to remove
dialog #3. Which meant that I've had to go through every Show/Hide
Wizard Dialog statement in the entire script and deduct 1 from any
dialog >3.
Would it be more useful to be able to assign a unique name to a dialog
in a future release. The Show/Hide dialog statement could then refer to
the name rather than the dialogs number in the script. If you leave a
show/hide for a dialog that's been deleted the compiler can throw an error.
This would also solve the problem where dialogs need to be re-arranged.
--
Simon Craythorn
InterVations, Inc