> What was the motivation of *override-parent-p*?
>
> Or, more specifically, why does it exist at all and why isn't it true by
> default? I thought that we want to maintain a healthy widget tree at all
> times, which might involve changing the widget's parent sometimes, or
> setting it twice.
In the original plan each widget could only have one parent.
Even setting another parent was verboten, and accessors
saw to it that this rule was obeyed ("this widget already
has a parent!").
So I introduced this variable that would allow one to
specify special situations.
IMO it would make sense to have multiple parents for widgets,
but I'm not sure how complicated it would be wrt to the
tree model.
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
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
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
