> Perhaps I didn't explain it particularly well, but my intention
> with the permissible-values field for the multichoice options was
> that, of the (name . description) pairs, that only the descriptions
> would be displayed, and that the names would remain invisible to the
> user. Names would be used by other functions to identify the
> value of the option, rather than an integer which would could change
> if new options were added, or the options were re-ordered.
Sounds good. The implementation just uses the integer ordering
for display purposes, not for export to other parts of gnome.
So, if you changed the ordering, the displayed order on screen
whould change, but the current value wouldn't.
> Your current version uses the names in the option menu, and displays
> the discriptions as tool tips (which look pretty cool, I have to say).
> If you think that this feature is
> worth retaining, we could, instead of using pairs to store the
> permissible-values data, use a vector and have a structure
> vector (symbol name description) where "symbol" does the job that
> I originally intended for name
>
> I haven't quite figured out yet how multi-choice options will get
> treated from the C side of things yet, but it would seem to me to
> be a good idea to have symbolic names (even represented as strings)
> for multi-choice options, and addition, that those names not be
> user-visible (in case somebody wants to modify the user-visible
> option description - perhaps for translation into another language).
>
> What do you think?
Sounds fine, I'll do that tonight.
dave
--
Gnucash Developer's List
To unsubscribe send empty email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
