On Dec 13, 2011, at 1:43 AM, Domingo Alvarez Duarte wrote: > Transparency ! Been done by the fltk kernel means no effot must be done by > end users and the proposed modifications are minimal.
Granted putting it in FLTK proper would mean apps won't need to do the "heavy lifting" themselves, but FLTK has been around for almost 14 years and I don't remember seeing a lot of complaints about the current system (and the ones we did get were that changed() previously only worked if you didn't use a callback - the original implementation did exactly what you propose for changed2...) Perhaps this could be a new poll to judge whether such a feature is wanted? My concern is that adding a "changed2" bit for all widgets will incur an additional processing overhead to applications that need to track and clear such things; if the changes are tracked by the application the change information can be localized so that a simple memset (or even a change counter) is sufficient to reset the changed state of widgets rather than traversing the widget hierarchy to clear all of the set bits. > On Mon, 12 Dec 2011 20:48:47 +0100, Michael Sweet <m...@easysw.com> wrote: > >> Is there a reason why user_data() (or some other application-specific >> data) can't be used for this? > _______________________________________________ > fltk-dev mailing list > fltk-dev@easysw.com > http://lists.easysw.com/mailman/listinfo/fltk-dev _____________ Michael Sweet _______________________________________________ fltk-dev mailing list fltk-dev@easysw.com http://lists.easysw.com/mailman/listinfo/fltk-dev
