On 2006-05-17, at 12:42 EDT, Philip Romanik wrote: > Hi Tucker, > > Thanks for the comments. I did try and make the conditionals no > more complicated than they have to. But you caught a few I missed > so I think I should change all/most of them to be equivalent to > their original version.
Probably best, just to make sure we don't change functionality. > If you don't mind, I'd also like to prepare a list of code snippets > for you to look at. I didn't make any assumptions about object > references in the file I was editing. Because of this, I used the > 'in' operator rather than making other modifications. For example, > your comment in LzView of not declaring an event. I did not assume > that 'this.immediateparent' is always an instance of LzView. If > this is true, I'll define the event and remove the conditional. I think it is valid that your parent must be an LzView. > Sorry for make more work for you. Not a problem. This is great work that we have put off for too long. Feel free to send me any further questions. If you address the comments and the `in` semantics issue, I think the next step is to get the patch QA-ed against the demo apps. I would normally say just check it in so we all can test it, but Henry and I have the system in a bit of a fragile state just now... _______________________________________________ Laszlo-dev mailing list [email protected] http://www.openlaszlo.org/mailman/listinfo/laszlo-dev
