On Wed, 14 Feb 2024 20:57:14 GMT, Andy Goryachev <ango...@openjdk.org> wrote:
>> Yes! I did it this way to be consistent with all other cell implementations. >> I really think that this should be refactored, I can also create a ticket >> for this. My preference would be to be consistent now, but change it for all >> cell implementations in one go. >> What is your opinion? > > my opinion: the code is not broken per se. Since this block is edited, I > would have changed it just in this file to make the logic clearer (in other > places, like TreeTableCell:685 it is functional because we have more code in > line 692 and on). > I don't think another ticket is necessary because, technically speaking, the > code is not broken. > (just my opinion) yes, but other cells have the exact same pattern, although it is not needed. And technically speaking, this is not even needed in `TreeTableCell`, tbh I never even needed a labeled if ever. 😄 But sure, can also change. ------------- PR Review Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/jfx/pull/1360#discussion_r1490919877
