On Dec 12, 2007, at 5:18 AM, Christiaan Hofman wrote: > Now that you've removed makeType:, how should we handle empty fields > in the editor? Right now things are inconsistent, as in some places > empty strings are equivalent to nil, and in other places they're not. > For example, adding, removing, and changing a field name still assume > that non-displayed fields are empty and displayed fields are not > empty, which now is wrong.
Didn't know that; I've never changed a field name or looked at that code, so I'm not sure what the implications are. The delete should just delete the selected row, I think (and be disabled for un-deletable rows). I'd use that action regularly except that it's so annoying to go through the sheet/popup for each one...so I end up leaving RIS imports with a bunch of junk fields. > It's a bit annoying to add explicit checks > for empty strings, as +isEmptyString does not work correctly for > complex strings. Perhaps we should have an +isEmptyAsComplexString:. Yes, that does sound annoying > So should we display empty values? Note that those could be left over > from type changes (or not?) I thought the datasource rebuilt every time the type changed...should have looked closer to see what's going on. I'd rather not see empty values. ------------------------------------------------------------------------- SF.Net email is sponsored by: Check out the new SourceForge.net Marketplace. It's the best place to buy or sell services for just about anything Open Source. http://sourceforge.net/services/buy/index.php _______________________________________________ Bibdesk-develop mailing list Bibdesk-develop@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bibdesk-develop
