Stephen Compall <[email protected]> writes: > Jan Rychter <[email protected]> writes: >> BTW, I like what you have done with widget-children. It's a better >> interface than what I implemented. > > I'm sure everyone has moved on, and the rest are tired of talking about > it,
I don't think this is true. We're still looking for a good solution. > but I still strongly object to not providing the functional > "subwidgets" interface. > Here's the thing: *all* of the benefits that you list in your rationale > can still be had by any user simply by making a subwidgets-method that > uses widget-children, and having the universal subwidget clients (such > as the updater and walk-widget-tree, *not* render-widget-children) call > subwidgets instead. Those who use the storage w-c instead of defining a > walker get the slot-visible children list, the free MWPW, the same > control over child rendering, and so on. Furthermore, those who do want > to store separately, can do so without calling (setf widget-children), > though of course they also don't get the free MWPW and have to control > rendering more precisely. > > Since those who don't want to use it at all won't be affected by it, I > don't see any further reason that it shouldn't be included. Unless I'm > wildly missing something else. I am not entirely sure I understand everything you wrote above, but as I wrote before, I've been defending functionality, not implementation. If implementing the above interface helps some people and does not limit the functionality I described, I'm all for it. I won't find it useful, but I won't mind it either. --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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
