Ian Ward wrote:
>
> Hello,
>
> please try the latest svn version to see if it works for you now.
> Changeset 137 allows box widgets to render 0-row canvases, which should
> fix your problem.
>
> Ian
>
I'll be sure to take a look! Though it might have to wait until Saturday :)
I've been working on a patch to add "layout hint" wrapper classes to
replace the tuple system, as I mentioned in my last email, but I got a
little side-tracked when I started modifying the classes. I factored out
some common code for calculating sizes, and tried to see if there were
less verbose ways of writing some of the functions - not an easy thing
to do, as often less verbose equates to less efficient.
I was trying to wrap Pile.get_item_rows in a cache decorator, but then I
realised that it wouldn't work for flow widgets (as even if the size,
focus and widget_list stay the same, the individual widgets may return
different values for their rows()). Before the weekend ended, I was
seeing if using thunks would allow me to cut down on the boiler-plate:
def thunk(func, *args, **kwargs):
value = []
def inner():
if value == []:
value.append(func(*args, **kwargs))
return value[0]
return inner
item_rows = thunk(self.get_item_rows, size, focus)
item_rows() # calculates value
item_rows() # returns value in cache
Whether that's a good solution I'm uncertain, and it's not like it cuts
down on a whole lot of code (probably slightly more expensive than an
if-statement, too), but I figure it's interesting enough for me to explore.
On the subject of efficiency, have you considered adding support for
Psyco? Since a lot of code appears to be purely computational (handling
size and layout calculations), there may be some significant speed-ups
to be had for relatively little effort.
--
James Reeves
_______________________________________________
Urwid mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.excess.org/mailman/listinfo/urwid
