yes, I know, and it's great and awesome, but there might also be the case
where you don't really want to have any properties at all, cause it's just
a simple abstraction. I have a couple of such examples in my library. And I
think it would be worse to come up with dummy properties just for the sake
of having properties, just because you're not allowed to not have
properties. In other words, it can also be limiting to force it to have


2018-03-06 15:52 GMT-03:00 IOhannes m zmölnig <>:

> On 03/06/2018 07:23 PM, Alexandre Torres Porres wrote:
> > Now, in my defense, I can say there could be not so pointless features
> > here. Like, I have a nice GUI abstraction, and people may think it's an
> > external and that they can change its properties, but it's not, so it'd
> be
> > nice to suppress the properties option, I think. And I don't think it's
> > nice to have a useless and pointless canvas properties for a GUI
> > abstraction. Now, if this were an external, it would just not show any
> > properties, because there isn't one, but when it comes to abstractions,
> we
> > do not have a choice... Moreover, it wouldn't add any dependency, as this
> > would be for my external library, and the abstraction already has
> > dependencies to other externals in the library.
> you know, with [propertybang] your GUI abstraction would (well: could)
> have *real* properties. not just the generic ones every abstraction has,
> but properties like GUI externals.
> which i think is rather more interesting than having no properties menu.
> fgadsmr
> IOhannes
> _______________________________________________
> mailing list
> UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management ->
> listinfo/pd-list
_______________________________________________ mailing list
UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management ->

Reply via email to