On Mon, Jul 05, 2004 at 07:49:51PM +0100, Tim Larson wrote: > On Mon, Jul 05, 2004 at 01:44:26PM +0200, Joerg Heinicke wrote: > > On 05.07.2004 12:35, Vilya Harvey wrote: > > >If we had fd:case, wouldn't that imply that we'd have to duplicate > > >widget declarations when the same widget appears in more than one case? > > > > Yes, that would imply it, but it is not different than before: the cases > > are mutually exclusive. To reuse widget declarations there are still > > fd:class and fd:new. > > Note that these only reuse the widget *definitions*, not the widget > instances, so would save typing but not cause cases to share values. > Union cases really are mutually exclusive. This is one of the things we > are trying to fix in the choice/case and now the masks proposals.
Btw, you could wrap each individual widget in its own union widget, and have groups of unions share the same caseWidgets. This way you can *simulate* having cases share some widgets. Of course this is clumsy (and a motivation for coming up with something better), but at least it is a solution that works for now. --Tim Larson --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
