Adding conditional when selecting text right to left

Please post bug reports for earlier versions of Help & Manual (3 and 4) here, along with reports for TNT.

Moderators: Alexander Halser, Tim Green

Post Reply
User avatar
Dean Whitlock
Posts: 577
Joined: Thu Sep 01, 2005 5:59 pm
Location: Thetford Center, Vermont USA
Contact:

Adding conditional when selecting text right to left

Unread post by Dean Whitlock »

I added a conditional tag around some words. Then I selected the next few words of text and added another conditional tag. If I select the next word string from left to right by clicking just past the End tag and using shift-click at the end of my string, there is no problem. However, if I select the next text by clicking at the right end of the string and using Shift-Click just after the first End tag, when I add the second conditional, the first End tag is deleted (or perhaps replaced by the If tag for the second). I have tried it several times, making sure that the first End tag is not part of the highlighted selected text.

The same thing happens if I use Click-and-Drag to select the text: dragging from left to right = no problem. Dragging from right to left = first End tag disappears.

Using the latest build (1121) on XP SP2.
User avatar
Tim Green
Site Admin
Posts: 23157
Joined: Mon Jun 24, 2002 9:11 am
Location: Bruehl, Germany
Contact:

Unread post by Tim Green »

Dean,

Confirmed. Not only that, but the second set of conditional tags entered is not a pair, only the opening tag is entered, so you end up with two opening tags. This is not the current build, however -- it's also present in 1138, so it has probably been around for a while.
Regards,
Tim (EC Software Documentation & User Support)

Private support:
Please do not email or PM me with private support requests -- post to the forum directly.
User avatar
Dean Whitlock
Posts: 577
Joined: Thu Sep 01, 2005 5:59 pm
Location: Thetford Center, Vermont USA
Contact:

Unread post by Dean Whitlock »

Tim Green wrote:This is not the current build, however -- it's also present in 1138, so it has probably been around for a while.
Oops - a typo: I meant 1211. But I believe you're right that it's not new. I'm sure I noticed it earlier but didn't bother to test it further at the time.

Obviously it's not a show-stopper, just one of those irksome little bugs.
Post Reply