Kevin Finn writes:
>
> I can take a stab at it - I'm interested in picking up more Gtk+. Does it
> make more sense for each option to provide access functions that other options
> can use to enable/disable it, or perhaps just have those other options
> disable the affected option "by name" ("Section" + "Option name", etc.)?
> Access functions would be better encapsulation, but on the other hand it
> would be a lot of overhead to provide that ability for every prefs option that
> exists, since enabling/disabling won't be needed for 95% of the prefs. I'm
> thinking of something like:
>
> gnc_set_option_selectable( "General",
> "Auto Decimal Point Range",
> GNC_F );
>
> in the spirit of gnc_lookup_boolean_option. What really gets changed is the
> "sensitive" property of the widget that is connected to "Automatic Decimal
> Point".
I think disabling by name would be sufficient - it is consistent with
the rest of the options interface.
Which brings me to another point - if we make options mutable, should
it be an error if we try to read a muted option's value? If an
option is disabled, the option's value is not relevant to
the current state of gnucash, and code should not be trying to read
that value. I think, therefore, that it should be an error and
signalled as such.
Please don't take my comments as definitive, though - Dave Peticolas
wrote most of the options code, and he may have other ideas.
------------------------------------------------------------
Robert Merkel [EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------------------------------------
--
Gnucash Developer's List
To unsubscribe send empty email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
