It's all going to be rewritten into C++ anyway, so I didn't want to spend alot of time on it. The new one for 2.4 is better than the old one, may or may not be better than yours. Either way it all gets rewritten.
IT WAS EASYER FOR YOU TO ADD MY THEN MAKE YOUR OWN. thats were the logic horificaly brakes down so much, that offereing a solution to the argument without retaining to cosmic rift methods is higly impossible.
WHY DID NUM ADD HIS? HE DOES NOT GIVE A F&&& ABOUT MY WORK. I AM WASTING TYPE FOR 2 YEARS ALREADY AND I JUST FAIL TO SEE THIS.
may or [you]may not [/you]be better than yours.
Below is provided how it is better then yours num, you still have to prove me wrong on it
8 points of selection looks sloppy.
First time I use windows I thought it was the most redicules disorganized peace of crap I ever seen. But its comfort that counts.
Num attempted an explonation that had nothing to do with the problem, I still don't buy it.
Mine doesn't wiggle when you drag it (or flicker, or whatever you want to call it).
Thats nice, mine is not supposed to do that eather.
Num attempted an explonation that had nothing to do with the problem, I still don't buy it.
And I prefer dragging the existing box instead of creating a new one when you click outside the box.
I agree , if you never actualy use the robot plasment, there is no point of making it other then your own "preferable" way.
Num attempted an explonation that had nothing to do with the problem, I still don't buy it.
It's all bounds checked when the control loses focus.
D.) Very funny Num, Now you can draw the rectangle outside the limits of the screen.
Yes this is WAY better then my , your logic is undiniable.
Num attempted an explonation that had nothing to do with the problem, I still don't buy it.
I don't know what you mean by C.
No "optional" keep in place "keep plasment", Girz does not care , I dont care.
(probebly still reporduces only the one veg from the list.)/RANT 'see my comments in code "aha gotea" one , stolen from my math teacher test results 53% one.
Num attempted an explonation that had nothing to do with the problem, I still don't buy it.
And I can read this code and make sense of it
I can't read your code , or make sense of it at times... thank god its open source.
(were is the logic, num knew no vb he is just being a #%$%# thats were the logic is. Can't beat solid cr quitable logic.)
Num attempted an explonation that had nothing to do with the problem, I still don't buy it.
A. ) No circler plasment
No answer. Yes Num likes his work , I bet. Who does not?
Num attempted an explonation that had nothing to do with the problem, I still don't buy it.
B.) Using the "frame" instead of a "picture box" , bad look.
followed by a no answer followed by "looks sloppy" , unidniable logic, end of story.
Num attempted an explonation that had nothing to do with the problem, I still don't buy it.
