If I have a class defined like this:
<class name="subclassbox" extends="happystyledbox">
<attribute name="bgcolor" value="navy" />
<attribute name="width" value="150" />
<attribute name="innerColor" value="blue" />
</class>
with a superclass
<class name="happystyledbox" width="70" height="70" bgcolor="$style
{'stylebgcolor'}" /> ...
and an instance
<subclassbox id="sb2" />
...when in the construction drama does the value of bgcolor on sb2
get looked up?
I'm finding that, for an instance sb2 of subclassbox, the superclass's
definition of bgcolor to a $style constraint is evaluated, but the
explicit value of bgcolor should be used instead.
The code for __LZapplyStyleMap carefully doesn't let a style
constraint override an explicit attribute as specified in the
arguments specified on the instance itself. I need to *also* block
the case where a style constraint from a superclass would override an
attribute set explicitly in a subclass. How can I figure out what
attributes are explicitly set somewhere in the superclass chain?
(I'm talking about legals, btw. This test already passes in trunk.)
Benjamin Shine
Software Engineer, Open Laszlo / Laszlo Systems
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
