On Sat, 26 Mar 2016 04:58:42 -0700 (PDT) "Edward K. Ream" <[email protected]> wrote:
> That's enough for now. I'll await comments. :-) First thoughts, without having had a chance to look at the code yet, this viewrendered refactoring would probably be a good thing to do in a branch, and the design was for nested_splitter to be completely Leo free, as it's supposed to be purely a QSplitter replacement, with Leo specific stuff in free_layout.py. These are both very minor points though. The providers / factories are asked if they want to provide / manufacture the widget for an ID string, the first that accepts it gets to do it. I think there's at least one case where the ID string contains additional information, like "__example:tbrown.20160317213437.1" for an Example pane using info. from the node with the gnx, but I'm not sure. I guess I'm really just thinking about the complexity of layout persistence, something to now break. I'll try and find some time to look at the code today. Cheers -Terry -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "leo-editor" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/leo-editor. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
