I'm trying to create an array of indexes for where the rectangles (images) in my document are embedded.

[danielg98770948]

I'm not sure why this line isn't working:

myArray = app.activeDocument.rectangles.everyItem( ).index;

Maybe I just don't fully understand how everyItem() works.

I've also tried this:

myArray = app.activeDocument.rectangles.parent.everyItem( ).index; 

It's my understanding that there is a character at the insertion point of the image that is the parent of the rectangle object, but maybe I'm off here?

Please help! 

[uniqued_tol]

Hi, try this; myArray = app.activeDocument.stories.everyItem().rectangles.index;

[danielg98770948]

It's not working

I have a test document with 1 page, a full text frame on that page.  The text frame contains 4 short paragraphs with 1 image anchored at the end of the first paragraph and second image anchored at the end of the 4th paragraph.  When I run the line of code:

myArray = app.activeDocument.stories.everyItem().rectangles.everyItem().index

I get a 2-element array, but the it is just [0,0].  My isn't it giving the actual indexes for the images?

[Peter Kahrel]

It's not a problem of any of the script approaches, it's the way InDesign sees/reports page items and other objects. You can see that when you select one of your rectangles and do app.selection[0].index -- it returns 0. Take another embedded rectangle, and its index, too, is 0.

It does make sense, though. Indexes indicate the rank of similar objects in a parent domain. When you place two non-embedded rectangles on a document page, they have the same parent (the page), and app.documents[0].rectangles.everyItem().index returns [0,1]. When you move one of the rectangles to another page, the rectangles have different parents and app.documents[0].rectangles.everyItem().index returns [0,0].

It's the same with your embedded rectangles: they're in the same story, but they have different parents (different characters) so that each rectangle is the only rectangle in its domain, and therefore each has index 0.

Peter

[danielg98770948]

Thank you.  That makes sense!