On Wed, Nov 16, 2011 at 3:11 PM, Hans-Peter Diettrich <[email protected]> wrote: > This reminds me on "native" CommCtrls, which don't exist on non-Win32 > widgetsets. When all these controls come in a *portable* and a *Win32* > flavor, the implementation would be simplified a lot.
I am writing the custom drawn equivalents of CommCtrls and I don't remember meeting Windowsims. There do are lots and lots of features in each control, but that other widgetsets don't support them in itself is not a windowism. The vast majority of features in CommCtrls are very generic. The problem of widgetsets having different capabilities is very natural, you can't expect sets of controls written by unrelated people to be 100% equivalent in all features. They are not, and never will be. The people which write those controls don't claim that they are compatible with anything else, so why should we expect them to be? The more exotic the widgetset the worse. Of course all of this generates reliability issues and a burdain on people maintaining/porting the LCL, but that is not an unsolvable problem. It is your choice to use a native widgetset and native widgets, if you don't like them you should be using the custom drawn widgets and work in the customdrawn widgetset: http://wiki.lazarus.freepascal.org/Lazarus_Custom_Drawn_Controls#Controls_which_imitate_the_Common_Controls_Palette -- Felipe Monteiro de Carvalho -- _______________________________________________ Lazarus mailing list [email protected] http://lists.lazarus.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/lazarus
