On Fri, Jul 02, 2004 at 10:40:59PM +0000, Joerg Heinicke wrote: > The solution (hoping that Tim also reads it): > The implicite cases are really hard to understand, especially as there is > fb:case and ft:case, but no fd:case. The fd:struct I use also has effect on the > template and binding (I have to add them there too to get the same tree) and > complicates them unnecessarily. Why don't we simply introduce explicite fd:case > - until we have masks ;-)
I agree that leaving out fd:case was a mistake, but I am not sure how to make it better without breaking existing forms. If we add and require fd:case it would be clearer and help avoid errors and misunderstandings, but it would break any forms that are already using "union" widgets. It would be easy to add a fd:case, just copy or extend the "struct" widget, because they both act the same, or at least pretty close. --Tim Larson --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
