I think a (column,row) coordinate, as Pete had it before, makes more sense. This idea of a cell index that we currently use in some methods is a disturbing one. It presumes an array-like implementation for the table objects. Otherwise converting cell indexes to (column,row) coordinates back and forward can be expensive. --Andres.
________________________________ From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Pete Brunet Sent: Tuesday, June 23, 2009 7:40 PM To: IA2 List Subject: Re: [Accessibility-ia2] rowHeader/columnHeader implementationproposal Here's the update: HRESULT IAccessibleTable::columnHeaderList( [in] long cellIndex, [in] long maxColumnHeaders, [out, size_is(maxColumnHeaders), length_is(*nColumnHeaders)] IUnknown ** columnHeaders, [out, retval] long * nColumnHeaders ) HRESULT IAccessibleTable::rowHeaderList( [in] long cellIndex, [in] long maxRowHeaders, [out, size_is(maxRowHeaders), length_is(*nRowHeaders)] IUnknown ** rowHeaders, [out, retval] long * nRowHeaders ) James Teh wrote: On 24/06/2009 12:19 PM, Pete Brunet wrote: Why not use the cell index, which specifies both row and column? Or am I missing something here? That would work too. Is that preferable? To be honest, I don't really mind. However, other table methods seem to take a cell index, so it's probably more consistent. It also saves calling columnIndex/rowIndex unnecessarily.
_______________________________________________ Accessibility-ia2 mailing list [email protected] https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/accessibility-ia2
