> > On 25.08.2008, at 14:49, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > > > Having done this, I think there wouldn't be any remaining meaningful > > distinction between Widget and Group, and the latter could > > be eliminated altogether. That would be a Good Thing (tm), imo. > > > I have thought about that quite a bit and I am not sure we hould do > that. The functionality is quite different. A group *contains* a bunch > of other widgets. The label however is strictly connected to a single > widget and positioned in relation to the widget, possibly outside of > the widget bounds. > > This is not to say that a widget should not be a group. This can be > useful when deriving new combined widget types. It appears to me > however that the label should be seperate. >
Well, knowing next to nothing about the implementation details I'm sort of talking through my hat -- still, as a layman, it's hard to see the problem. A widget/group would contain zero or more other widgets, some of which might be labels. A label's position would be a function of its alignment and its parent's geometry. Of course, that's a view from 3,000 meters up. I'm sure there are issues that I'm not familiar with. Best, Stan _______________________________________________ fltk-dev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.easysw.com/mailman/listinfo/fltk-dev
