> I always though of the Tree Browser (and the Pulldwon menus) as just > some specialised Fl_Scroll. Because the tree functionality itself is > already implemented as Fl_Group and Fl_Widget. +1 I believe Fl_Group could be a sufficient base class, I also believe (from our own experience) that we should be minimalist on the tree api, this api should only care about tree browsers, have clear selection / unselection API from the start, the selection api should not rely on a tree walking state, hard to track, hard to debug and especially inneficient when searching for nodes. Maybe we should also think about icon animationaspect (like the one I did in fltk2 but on a 'sane' fundation ;-) from the start ?
> > This has the benefit that no code is duplicated, and that functions, > like walking the tree, would become available for all FLTK widget trees. +1 And still permits keeping this widgett simple and manageable. > > I am looking forward to reading your implementation ideas. I'm on it ! Fabien _______________________________________________ fltk mailing list [email protected] http://lists.easysw.com/mailman/listinfo/fltk
