Errors, bugs, questions - page 518
You are missing trading opportunities:
- Free trading apps
- Over 8,000 signals for copying
- Economic news for exploring financial markets
Registration
Log in
You agree to website policy and terms of use
If you do not have an account, please register
That's why it doesn't fit, because this property refers to the aspect of selecting a graphical object with the mouse, and not to the order in which it is rendered.
It's not about layers, it's just about the sequence, layers are a bit different. So it's not OBJPROP_LAYER, but something like OBJPROP_WEIGHT or OBJPROP_PRIORITY.
Exactly in layers. )) Although, if you're not using Photoshop or 3D Max, you might be more comfortable calling it OBJPROP_WEIGHT, but in the world of graphics, and what we're discussing right now refers to it, it's correct to call it layers. That is, when one object obscures another, as it is on the layer above.)
The scale of your terminology is daunting to me: layers! You're talking about real layers, and I'm talking just about imitating the outline/approximation of an object. If you seriously think about adding layers to graphical objects of any scale and complexity, even the tiniest graphical thing will require a whole chart window layer, and since there could be lots of objects, can you imagine what a multilayer pie that would be? If I want to add sub-layers for small objects, instead of having full layers the size of the whole window (the size of the whole chart), I have a question: where will these sub-layers be and won't they overlap the sub-layers of other objects and layers? Multiple overlaps would make it very difficult to access other objects, so it's not a good idea. The sublayers would also have to have ZORDERs. There's a lot of confusion. And the imitation queue is actually an individual sublayer in the object itself, not the "transparent rectangular glass" into whose perimeter it is inscribed. If one operates in such terms, then the layer here is still more or less usable as a term and as an idea. But in that case, this idea is already being exploited by the developers of the graphic part of the terminal.
I don't know how it's implemented in Photoshop, but the general question is: can the linked state of thin lines of a graphical object (e.g. Wil Andrews) without any transparent flat carrier be called a full layer with transparent mouse access to the underlying objects within the "transparent glass" area of the top object, minus the linked lines themselves of course?
The scale of your terminology is daunting to me: layers! You're talking about real layers and I'm only talking about imitating the outline/approximation of an object. If you seriously think about adding layers to graphical objects of any scale and complexity, even the tiniest graphical thing will require a whole chart window layer, and since there could be lots of objects, can you imagine what a multilayer pie that would be? If I want to add sub-layers for small objects, instead of having full layers the size of the whole window (the size of the whole chart), I have a question: where will these sub-layers be and won't they overlap the sub-layers of other objects and layers? Multiple overlaps would make it very difficult to access other objects, so it's not a good idea. The sublayers would also have to have ZORDERs. There's a lot of confusion. And a simulated queue is actually an individual sublayer to the object itself. If you operate with such terms, then the layer here is still more or less usable as a term and as an idea. But in that case, this idea is already being fully exploited by the developers of the graphic part of the terminal.
That's a bit far-fetched.) By default, let all objects be created as they are now. That is, their location will depend on the order of creation. Let them "mingle" with each other on the zero layer, as you like. It would be useful to specify such property as layer, for example, for those objects that belong to information or any other trade panels. That is, to a small set. This problem only occurs to me when one panel overlaps another during window resizing. I wish I didn't have to see such "bugs" and in principle it can be fixed by recreating all the objects in the right order. But, as you wrote, this can be very inconvenient. There may be many different combinations. (It's a madhouse in general.)) It would be more convenient to specify the layer. This refers to those panels that can be opened, closed and there are several of them.
And what is your problem?
I don't know how it's implemented in Photoshop, but in general the question arises: can a meshed state of thin lines (such as Wil Andrews) be called a full layer with transparent mouse access to the subject objects within the "transparent glass" area of the top object, minus, of course, the meshed lines themselves?
It's a tricky question. Try formulating it in a simpler way. ))
More precisely, what are you trying to do and what is not working?
What is your problem?
It's a difficult question. Try to put it in a simpler way. ))
More precisely, what are you trying to do and what isn't working?
What do you call a layer? What is officially called a layer? Is a layer always "transparent glass" on which you can draw lines with a felt-tip pen? Or can a layer be any graphical structure (elementary or complex, made of separate elementary lines) of lines lying in one plane, and moreover any part of this graphical structure can be "grabbed" by hand from any side or not because the structure from lines will be drawn on the "glass" and we hit the glass trying to grab a line?
In other words, is the plane in which the graphic object lies transparent to both the eye and the mouse and therefore conditional or full-fledged and therefore impenetrable (like glass)?
... or cannot, because the structure of the lines will be drawn on the "glass" and we will hit the glass with our hand when trying to grasp the line?
This one is for bitmap graphics, like in Photoshop. It's not the right one for us.
x100intraday:
... Any graphic structure (elementary or complex, composed of separate elementary lines) of lines lying in one plane can already be considered a layer, and any part of that graphic structure can be "grabbed by hand" from any side
This is what we need. This is how it's implemented in vector graphics. Like Illustrator and Corel Draw. And in the three-dimensional graphics, such as in 3D Max, you can put each object on its own layer, and at any time, you can edit each of these objects and put them one by one. That would be ideal. For us, as in vector graphics it would be enough)).
At the moment, MetaTrader 5 has a main layer, the one with the price chart on it. The background layer, the one behind the price chart. And a front layer, the one in front of the price chart. And there are sub-layers on the background layer and on the front layer, the location of which depends on when the object was created.
...And there are sub-layers whose location depends on when the object was created.
Since there is such a thing as sub-layers, it should not be difficult to give objects the property of rendering priority. And the priority should not be bool: true/false, but multiple stepping. The task here can be more complex than just staring at the top object in a subplot and call it a day; in many tasks, multiple prioritization might be required.