Hi, On Tue, Jun 11, 2013 at 9:54 AM, Daniel Juyung Seo <seojuyu...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Tue, Jun 11, 2013 at 9:42 PM, Leif Middelschulte < > leif.middelschu...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> Am Dienstag, 11. Juni 2013 schrieb Daniel Juyung Seo : >> >> > Hello, this follows elementary policy. >> > >> > 1. focused object A lose its focus when another object is going to get >> > focus. >> > 2. an object is focused when it's clicked. >> > >> > so the sequence is >> > 1. click object B >> > 2. focused object A lose its focus >> > 3. object B gets focus >> > >> > So only one object is focused at any point. >> > >> > It's not possible to unfocus other object before any other object is >> > clicked. >> > Because clicked signal will trigger unfocus signal. >> >> So, as I already imagined, it's due to the current implementation. >> > > Not just an implementation. It's a policy. > > >> Can't we trigger "unfocused" callbacks, before we trigger "clicked" >> callbacks? I assume that it's the way it is, because Edje understands >> > > How come? > I repeat. > 1. An object is focused when it's clicked. > 2. An object is unfocused when other object is going to be focused. > > It means mouse click -> unfocused -> focused.
If I understood correctly, Leif is saying that this is not what is happening, and his test proves that (I didn't try it). He is saying that the current order is: mouse click -> focused -> unfocused Regards, -- Rafael Antognolli ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ This SF.net email is sponsored by Windows: Build for Windows Store. http://p.sf.net/sfu/windows-dev2dev _______________________________________________ enlightenment-devel mailing list enlightenment-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/enlightenment-devel
