From: David Abrahams (dave_at_[hidden])
Date: 2004-03-04 13:03:12
"David Turner" <dkturner_at_[hidden]> writes:
>> 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.
I'm not interested in the free/not free debate, and I don't have an
opinion on it. I'm only interested in the syntax for building
-- Dave Abrahams Boost Consulting www.boost-consulting.com
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk