"Leslie P. Polzer" <[email protected]> writes: >> Is it actually used anywhere? I went through that code recently and had >> the impression that a) it isn't really used, b) it probably wouldn't >> work anyway. > > It's important for user code and it does work. > > What makes you think it's broken?
It used find-widget-by-path which I don't think worked correctly. BTW, I killed find-widget-by-path in my tree. I believe that since we have the widget tree as a first-class citizen, we should be operating on that tree, without putting on gloves and accessing the tree by "widget paths". E.g. there is no harm in referencing the widgets themselves, instead of accesing them through paths. We should also probably have a nicely generalized tree walk method for those cases when we really lost a widget and need to find it. I already have two similar methods like this in my tree: one for containers (a modified version of your container-update-children) and another one for building breadcrumbs. I kept them separate because I wanted to use method dispatch for finding navigation widgets, but one could presumably write a generalized tree walking method. --J. --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "weblocks" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/weblocks?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
