Maybe, but does hidden/collapsed have any value when visible? In which case having them as a separate state seems incorrect to me. I'm happy to have it as is, but as I said, I'm used to it.
-----Original Message----- From: ozsilverlight-boun...@ozsilverlight.com [mailto:ozsilverlight-boun...@ozsilverlight.com] On Behalf Of Tony Wright Sent: Tuesday, 16 March 2010 7:07 AM To: 'ozSilverlight' Subject: RE: The verboseness of Visibility Well my thoughts are that Collapsed and Hidden are just states of not visible. So I'm still out on whether this is just annoying. T. -----Original Message----- From: ozsilverlight-boun...@ozsilverlight.com [mailto:ozsilverlight-boun...@ozsilverlight.com] On Behalf Of Steven Nagy Sent: Sunday, 14 March 2010 9:25 PM To: 'ozSilverlight' Subject: RE: The verboseness of Visibility I also find myself using MVVM a lot and I tend to just expose a property to bind to that is of type Visibility, wrapping up the underlying model that needs a bool. So really, I don't often find myself needing the BoolToVisibilityConverter anyway (and also I think there is a default converter for it now in the WPF framework bits, maybe there is one in SL too?) -----Original Message----- From: ozsilverlight-boun...@ozsilverlight.com [mailto:ozsilverlight-boun...@ozsilverlight.com] On Behalf Of ton...@tpg.com.au Sent: Friday, 12 March 2010 9:20 AM To: ozSilverlight Subject: RE: The verboseness of Visibility Cool, at least now I know the reason! Thanks. On Fri, Mar 12th, 2010 at 10:10 AM, ste...@snagy.name wrote: > No idea about this in SL but in WPF we have the same. Visibility DOES > > have 3 states: Visible, Hidden, Collapsed. > > Hidden is much differen from collapsed - a hidden object will still > > take the same amount of real estate such that if you have items > stacked and you set the first one as hidden, the second item will be > > in the same position still. However if you collapse the first item, > > the second item will move up to assume its spot. So collapsing works > > much better for flow layouts. > > For people in WPF world, they're used to this tri-state and a > BoolToVisibilityConverter is a 2 second job. (you all have a master > > resource dictionary for all these common reusable elements right?). > > Perhaps the SL change is the first step towards supporting this > tri-state? > > Quoting Mark <markspambus...@gmail.com>: > > > Yeah, I've thought about this too. I use a converter and so the > View Model > > can just use a bool, but it does seem like an unnecessary step. > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: ozsilverlight-boun...@ozsilverlight.com > > [mailto:ozsilverlight-boun...@ozsilverlight.com] On Behalf Of > > ton...@tpg.com.au > > Sent: Friday, 12 March 2010 11:31 a.m. > > To: ozsilverlight@ozsilverlight.com > > Subject: The verboseness of Visibility > > > > Hi all, > > > > Does anyone else get annoyed at the extra hastle required to set > and bind > > the Visibility property? > > > > I mean, how easy was it in the "old days" to simply set > IsVisible=true or > > IsVisible=false? You didn't > > need a Visibility to Bool converter, which is extra unneccessary > processing, > > and an extra point of > > failure if it's forgotten, and more text to make mistakes. > > > > I mean, come on, there are only two states. There will never be a > third > > state. Instead of writing in > > my code: > > > > TermTextBox.IsVisible = MyBoolVar; > > > > I have to write something like: > > TermTextBox.Visibility = (MyBoolVar ? Visibility.Visible : > > Visibility.Collapsed); > > > > Does it somehow give it extra contextual meaning for all the extra > effort? > > No. > > > > Can there be a third state, somehow semi-visible. No - that would > be handled > > via an opacity or > > animation. > > > > There is only a single meaning! > > > > It's Friday, bring it on! > > > > Regards, > > Tony > > > > _______________________________________________ > > ozsilverlight mailing list > > ozsilverlight@ozsilverlight.com > > http://prdlxvm0001.codify.net/mailman/listinfo/ozsilverlight > > > > _______________________________________________ > ozsilverlight mailing list > ozsilverlight@ozsilverlight.com > http://prdlxvm0001.codify.net/mailman/listinfo/ozsilverlight > > > _______________________________________________ ozsilverlight mailing list ozsilverlight@ozsilverlight.com http://prdlxvm0001.codify.net/mailman/listinfo/ozsilverlight _______________________________________________ ozsilverlight mailing list ozsilverlight@ozsilverlight.com http://prdlxvm0001.codify.net/mailman/listinfo/ozsilverlight _______________________________________________ ozsilverlight mailing list ozsilverlight@ozsilverlight.com http://prdlxvm0001.codify.net/mailman/listinfo/ozsilverlight _______________________________________________ ozsilverlight mailing list ozsilverlight@ozsilverlight.com http://prdlxvm0001.codify.net/mailman/listinfo/ozsilverlight
