On 11/10/10 6:15 PM, Monte Goulding wrote:
> Setting the stack ID to a number below it's current ID is a risk and
> you are right it's bad practice (I was just trying to work out how
> you end up with an id of 0 and I still couldn't replicate it) but
> going the other way is the only way we have to manage icon libraries.
The docs say you aren't supposed to be able to set a stack ID to
anything lower than its current one. I'm surprised you could set it to a
negative number, you aren't supposed to be able to do that either.
"A stack's ID is equal to the ID that will be assigned to the next
object created within that stack, so the stack ID is subject to change."
Maybe when you set it to zero, the engine pushed it back up again?