Skip to main content

FoxPro Design Tip: Check Visible before checking Autosize Width

This may seem fairly obvious but it's something that may catch up many FoxPro developers in screen design, as it just did me

Setting AutoSize to True is a great way to identify how wide a label needs to be to show its entire content. However, you may be tempted to set the AutoSize before showing the label so your screen doesn't appear to resize dynamically.

The catch here is that if the object isn't visible, AutoSize will not change.

Want to try it out?

_SCREEN.AddObject("lox","label")
lo = _SCREEN.lox
? lo.Width && Returns 100
lo.Caption = "Hello"
lo.AutoSize = .T.
? lo.Width && Still Returns 100
lo.Visible = .T.
? lo.Width && Now Returns 29

This isn't really a bug - after all, AutoSize should only ever decide what width to use once it knows it's being seen, but it can trip you up if you are trying to layout objects on a screen before making them visible.

The solution? Use LockScreen before doing any of the work. That way, AutoSize will still work properly but the user won't see you doing anything funky until you're completely done. LockScreen preserves the screen until you unlock it.

Using the same example:

_SCREEN.LockScreen = .T.
lo.Caption = "Hello my name is George"
MESSAGEBOX(lo.Width) && Shows 140 but won't show the new label
_SCREEN.LockScreen = .F.

Now you can see it working.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Elevating Project Specifications with Three Insightful ChatGPT Prompts

For developers and testers, ChatGPT, the freely accessible tool from OpenAI, is game-changing. If you want to learn a new programming language, ask for samples or have it convert your existing code. This can be done in Visual Studio Code (using GitHub CoPilot) or directly in the ChatGPT app or web site.  If you’re a tester, ChatGPT can write a test spec or actual test code (if you use Jest or Cypress) based on existing code, copied and pasted into the input area. But ChatGPT can be of huge value for analysts (whether system or business) who need to validate their needs. There’s often a disconnect between developers and analysts. Analysts complain that developers don’t build what they asked for or ask too many questions. Developers complain that analysts haven’t thought of obvious things. In these situations, ChatGPT can be a great intermediary. At its worst, it forces you to think about and then discount obvious issues. At best, it clarifies the needs into documented requirements. ...
Post a Comment
Read more

Respect

Respect is something humans give to each other through personal connection. It’s the bond that forms when we recognize something—or someone—as significant, relatable, or worthy of care. This connection doesn’t have to be limited to people. There was an  article  recently that described the differing attitudes towards AI tools such as ChatGPT and Google Gemini (formerly Bard). Some people treat them like a standard search while others form a sort of personal relationship — being courteous, saying “please” and “thank you”. Occasionally, people share extra details unrelated to their question, like, ‘I’m going to a wedding. What flower goes well with a tuxedo?’ Does an AI “care” how you respond to it? Of course not — it reflects the patterns it’s trained on. Yet our interaction shapes how these tools evolve, and that influence is something we should take seriously. Most of us have all expressed frustration when an AI “hallucinates”. Real or not, the larger issue is that we have hi...
Post a Comment
Read more

When A Machine Starts To Care

“Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.” Arthur C. Clarke (1962)  I first used that quote when I was starting out in the tech industry. Back then, it was a way to illustrate just how fast and powerful computers had become. Querying large datasets in seconds felt magical—at least to those who didn’t build them.  Today, we’re facing something even more extraordinary. Large Language Models (LLMs) can now carry on conversations that approach human-level fluency. Clarke’s quote applies again. And just as importantly, many researchers argue that LLMs meet—or at least brush up against—the criteria of the Turing Test.  We tend to criticize LLMs for their “hallucinations,” their sometimes-confident inaccuracies. But let’s be honest: we also complain when our friends misremember facts or recount things inaccurately. This doesn’t excuse LLMs—it simply highlights that the behavior isn’t entirely alien. In some ways, it mirrors our own cognitive limits....
Post a Comment
Read more