>>> "Nicolas" == Nicolas Goaziou <[email protected]> writes:
> Hello,
> Uwe Brauer <[email protected]> writes:
>> If you want to implement the second feature differently, because of
>> maintain reasons that sound reasonable, but please don't simple remove
>> the second feature.
> Then I'll just drop this branch. I'm against having the same (sub-set of
> a) feature implemented in two different ways.
That is a real pity! So in master we have the feature of narrowing one
column to a width we want. That is useful in scenario 1.
Now in the branch there is another *very nice* feature, which allows you
to hide many columns on the fly. That is useful in scenario 2.
So you are saying we cannot have both.
I still have your patch and use it often, I really don't want to miss
it, since it enhance the features of the table very much. It is a pity
that you won't conserve that. I hope that patch can survive in the
future.
> I still think width cookies in their current state are wrong since
> they really do two different things.
But couldn't the feature of shrink one particular wide column to a
certain width be implemented using your new implementation?
Thank you very much for you work and I still hope this can somehow be
saved and merged into master.
Regards
Uwe
