Which raises the question: what are our current thoughts on unifying
LFC class names to match their tag names? This would certainly
simplify the refguide, and would have other benefits as well. But
last time we discussed it, there were reasons it couldn't be done, I
think.
jim
On Jan 4, 2007, at 3:23 AM, P T Withington wrote:
Approved.
[If we were ever to undertake overhauling this code, I suspect the
question that really wants to be asked is not:
foo.constructor.tagname == '<user-defined-class>'
but:
foo instanceof <user-defined-class>
]
On 2007-01-02, at 10:49 EST, Philip Romanik wrote:
Change 20070102-Philip-6 by [EMAIL PROTECTED] on 2007-01-02
10:38:09 EST
in /cygdrive/f/laszlo/svn/src/svn/openlaszlo/branches/legals
Summary: Change 'classname' to 'constructor.tagname'
New Features:
Bugs Fixed:
Technical Reviewer: ptw
QA Reviewer: (pending)
Doc Reviewer: (pending)
Documentation:
Release Notes:
Details:
Charting package needs to be upgraded to run on legals.
this.classname doesn't exist on legals. this.constructor.tagname
(or this.constructor.classname) is used instead.
Tests:
Files:
M lps/components/charts/styles/styleparser.lzx
M lps/components/charts/styles/chartstyle.lzx
M lps/components/charts/common/horizontalaxis.lzx
M lps/components/charts/common/dataseries.lzx
M lps/components/charts/common/legend.lzx
M lps/components/charts/common/databar.lzx
M lps/components/charts/common/virtualdrawview.lzx
M lps/components/charts/common/chart.lzx
Changeset: http://svn.openlaszlo.org/openlaszlo/patches/20070102-
Philip-6.tar
