On 09.07.13 22:59, David Grieve wrote: > Since there is already a "requestLayout()" which defers to the next pulse, > what about "demandLayout()"?
then I would go for forceLayout() Tom
On 09.07.13 22:59, David Grieve wrote: > Since there is already a "requestLayout()" which defers to the next pulse, > what about "demandLayout()"?
then I would go for forceLayout() Tom