Greg Ercolano wrote:
>
> Seems to me it's the difference between just creating
> widgets, instead of having to call add() for everything.
>
> In other words, this:
>
> group.begin();
> out1 = new Fl_Output(..);
> out2 = new Fl_Output(..);
> but1 = new Fl_Button(..);
> but2 = new Fl_Button(..);
> group.end();
>
> ..seems easier/less redundant code and readability wise than:
>
> out1 = new Fl_Output(..);
> group.add(out1);
> out2 = new Fl_Output(..);
> group.add(out2);
> but1 = new Fl_Button(..);
> group.add(but1);
> but2 = new Fl_Button(..);
> group.add(but2);
>
but what about:
out1 = new Fl_Output( group, .. );
out2 = new Fl_Output( group, .. );
but1 = new Fl_Button( group, .. );
but2 = new Fl_Button( group, .. );
The add still takes place in the base widget class constructor,
but rather than a system wide static pointer the constructor
has a line such as:
widget::widget( widget* parent, .. ) {
..
parent->add( this );
}; // end widget constructor
-Daniel
_______________________________________________
fltk mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.easysw.com/mailman/listinfo/fltk
