On 05.07.2004 20:46, Tim Larson 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.
Why do you need to force the people to use fd:case? Just adding fd:case should not break anything. It should behave the same way as with my problem of missing fb:case last week.
Joerg
--------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
