2009/9/7 Matthias Melcher <[email protected]> > I think that the approach is wrong per se. A Browser should be nothing > more than a group with the additional functionality of selecting one > or more of its children. All other functionality already exists in > Fl_Pack and Fl_Scroll. Every child would simply be a widget. It could > be an Fl_Box, creating just a regular browser entry, or it could be a > Checkbox, replacing the Checkbox browser, or it could be a group, > itself containing an image and a label and a checkbox - whatever the > user wishes. >
I agree with this approach because it makes much more sense. > > Fl_Browser could still provide the give simple API, but the internals > should be a regular FLTK group. > > (BTW: a Group in a Group - something that is standard in FLTK - would > readily make for a Tree browser...) > I believe we should have different widgets because the way it's implemented on 2.0 today, I can't have a checkbox and a text in a group because it "opens" in two branches: one for the checkbox and another for the text. Thanks. -- Isaque Galdino "sic enim dilexit Deus mundum ut Filium suum unigenitum daret ut omnis qui credit in eum non pereat sed habeat vitam aeternam" -- Iohannes 3:16
_______________________________________________ fltk-dev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.easysw.com/mailman/listinfo/fltk-dev
