From: David Turner (dkturner_at_[hidden])
Date: 2004-03-04 12:10:21
Dave Abrahams wrote:
> "David Turner" <dkturner_at_[hidden]> writes:
>> Okay, you make a good point. On the other hand, I think that requiring
>> child elements to have an explicit owner is good design; the problem is
>> that the constructor syntax for widgets doesn't make it clear that they
>> are in fact being constructed by the owning window.
> You're still missing the point. The fact that the owning window
> constructs the child is an implementation detail that has nothing to
> do with the window structure/layout the user is trying to represent.
> The syntax for describing a window should be declarative, not
I'm well aware of the fact that owner windows are an implementation
detail. I also know full well that if I wanted to, I could cope with a
change of ownership.
The point *I'm* making is that there are design and utility considerations
as well as implementation considerations. By design, the window is the
factory for all other widgets. A button in one window isn't necessarily
the same thing as a button in another window; just as a bold font in one
document isn't necessarily the same as a bold font in another.
One cannot say in general that elements can be exchanged between
documents. Similarly, one cannot say in general that widgets can be
exchanged between windows.
If you think this is a weak argument, then I'll be happy to change the
interface. But please think very carefully about all the implications of
having free widgets first. I believe this slight interface oddity is a
small price to pay.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk