On Mon, Dec 19, 2011 at 11:40 PM, Ivan Vučica <[email protected]> wrote: > Personally, I don't care much whether or not this specific behavior is > changed. In fact, why not?
I don't really care either. What I do care is only how decisions are made for GNUstep. > I also don't find it problematic that existing (Cocoa) behavior is kept, > since it is trivial to update the field editor in addition to the currently > focused text field. > > The only counter argument for making the change is that free software written > for GNUstep might see strange bugs under OS X which are, in fact, not bugs at > all, but platform-specific quirks. Current behavior also allows greater > flexibility, too: one can change the color to red in case of validation > failure without displaying the color change live inside the field editor. > Someone may actually want that behavior. If someone actually really wanted that, they can also substitute their own custom field editor which should ignore color changes, not that I care because I raise this issue as the cell did setup the colors for field editor and I just want something consistency. > > I feel Bluna may also misunderstand the reasons for Cocoa compatibility: it's > not here just to facilitate porting of proprietary software from Cocoa (which > is, let's face it, difficult since many APIs are missing). It is here so that > free software written for GNUstep can easily flow in the other direction as > well. Bluna doesn't misunderstand that, because that point doesn't practically exist. If you want Cocoa portability, please write Cocoa code. If you use GNUstep extensions, you must know about it. _______________________________________________ Gnustep-dev mailing list [email protected] https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnustep-dev
