From: David Bergman (davidb_at_[hidden])
Date: 2004-03-04 12:33:26
David Abrahams wrote:
> > 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
> > imperative.
David Turner responded:
> 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.
I think you are missing the point a tiny bit. David (lot of those here...)
Abrahams tried to accentuate the syntactical/expressionist properties of the
GUI tree. I too think you gain a lot by keeping them as ASTs as long as
possible, which are subsequently traversed by the particular GUI
implementation (in your case, the "window" instance.)
I would not go that far to suggest the use of BGL to express the abstractly
syntactical tree, but almost ;-) Just to make sure there are no wrapper
glues in that part.