>
> Sure, something like that is theoretically possible (if Button.Group
> implemented Sequence, and we defined a ButtonGroupItem class that
> served as a means to dereference button IDs). But do you really think
> that is more readable than this?
>
> > <RadioButton wtkx:id="oneButton" buttonData="One" selected="true"
> > buttonGroup="numbersGroup"/>
> > <RadioButton wtkx:id="twoButton"
> > buttonData="Two"buttonGroup="numbersGroup"/>
> > <RadioButton wtkx:id="threeButton"
> > buttonData="Three"buttonGroup="numbersGroup"/>
>
> I don't.
>
Yes the current syntax is more readable but to be honest while evaluating the
tutorial to decide whether I want to use Pivot, the line:
final Button.Group numbersGroup =
Button.getNamedGroups().get("numbers");
Set off alarm bells. It is far too cumbersome and does not follow what I would
have intuitively guessed as the structure given what I have learned about
Pivot.
>
> Did you try declaring your group in a <wtkx:define> block and setting
> it on the radio buttons like this?
>
> <wtkx:define>
> <Button.Group wtkx:id="numbersGroup"/>
> </wtkx:define>
>
> <RadioButton wtkx:id="oneButton" buttonData="One" selected="true"
> buttonGroup="$numbersGroup"/>
>
> Then you can bind to it if you want.
This is much better.
