> Things like these:
>
>
> * Ewl Developer Warning * :
> To find where this is occurring set a breakpoint
> for the function ewl_print_warning.
> This program is calling:
>
> ewl_widget_type_is();
>
> With the parameter:
>
> widget
>
> being
On 10/19/05, Nathan Ingersoll <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
*snip*
> If anyone has questions or comments about any of these developments or
> anything else EWL related, please reply to the list so we can keep more
> people in the loop.
Sorry to bug. I know this might not be the main priority but I'
Yep, just may do that at some point.On 10/21/05, Michael Jennings <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Tuesday, 18 October 2005, at 23:09:07 (-0500),Nathan Ingersoll wrote:> I have never liked the parameter inconsistency in the widget constructor> calls, but have been content to support them as people are
On Tuesday, 18 October 2005, at 23:09:07 (-0500),
Nathan Ingersoll wrote:
> I have never liked the parameter inconsistency in the widget constructor
> calls, but have been content to support them as people are used to it from
> other toolkits, and it can save them some extra lines of code. As part
> If anyone has questions or comments about any of these developments or
> anything else EWL related, please reply to the list so we can keep more
> people in the loop.
>
Just as an addon to this, one of the more turbulent reworks I've been doing (on
the backburner for a while) is redoing the col
