That would be excellent, much better than a searchParents approach.
On Mon, Mar 7, 2011 at 2:52 PM, P T Withington <[email protected]> wrote:
> I agree.
>
> As to Raju's usage, that's an inefficient mechanism for getting around a
> known deficiency in LZX. We have (somewhere than I can't find) a proposal
> that LZX should use a lexical rather than a dynamic model for variable
> lookup. That is, it would be nice if you could write:
>
> <class ...
> <view name="bar" ...
> <view ...
> <view ...
> <method ...
> bar.doSomething();
>
> and have the inner `bar` resolve to the lexically apparent `bar` binding,
> rather than having to say `parent.parent.parent.bar`. I think many people
> would be happy if this worked. With Don's work on LPP-8751, we should be
> able to tell at compile time when a reference is not an instance reference,
> and look for a lexical binding that matches before defaulting to a dynamic
> lookup.
>
> On 2011-03-07, at 08:21, André Bargull wrote:
>
>> Actually it was already marked private in r7878 by Don as part of the
>> harmonisation of the 3.x and 4.0 docs. Don made it private in <node>,
>> because searchParents() wasn't referenced as a public method for <node> in
>> the 3.x docs, instead it was erroneously documented on the <view> reference
>> page. So you could say it was solely an accident that the method got private.
>> Although it was an accident, I'd still say we should not make it public
>> again, because searchParents() doesn't perform what it sounds like: I'd
>> expect it walks up the parent-chain to find a matching attribute, but
>> instead it uses the immediateparent-chain.
>>
>>> Not clear. Looks like I marked it private in r9179 as general doc cleanup.
>>> Probably I was being over-zealous.
>>>
>>> Can you give an example of how you used this? Internally, this is used
>>> mostly to inherit attribute values. The modern way to do that is to use
>>> CSS:
>>>
>>> <attribute name="foo" style="foo" inherit="true" />
>>>
>>> Will cause a node to inherit the CSS foo value from it's parent if it does
>>> not have one of its own. Are there other applications? If not, I am in
>>> favor of leaving this interface private.
>>>
>>> On 2011-03-06, at 07:36, Raju Bitter wrote:
>>>
>>>> > The LzNode#searchParents() method doesn't show up in the
>>>> > documentation, it's private now. What was the reason to make that
>>>> > method private? I used it a lot in my apps.
>
>
>
