Although coming from WPF I see the usefulness of it, I'm still with you -
it's annoying.
I'd be happy to settle for two bools:
bool IsVisible { get;set; } // Defaults to true
bool CollapseWhenHidden { get;set; } // Defaults to true
Just to make the binding easier.
I think it's fine to sacrifice some 'purity' for the sake of simplicity in
occasions like this.
Paul
On Tue, Mar 16, 2010 at 7:06 AM, Tony Wright <ton...@tpg.com.au> wrote:
> Well my thoughts are that Collapsed and Hidden are just states of not
> visible. So I'm still out on whether this is just annoying.
> T.
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: ozsilverlight-boun...@ozsilverlight.com
> [mailto:ozsilverlight-boun...@ozsilverlight.com] On Behalf Of Steven Nagy
> Sent: Sunday, 14 March 2010 9:25 PM
> To: 'ozSilverlight'
> Subject: RE: The verboseness of Visibility
>
> I also find myself using MVVM a lot and I tend to just expose a property to
> bind to that is of type Visibility, wrapping up the underlying model that
> needs a bool.
> So really, I don't often find myself needing the BoolToVisibilityConverter
> anyway (and also I think there is a default converter for it now in the WPF
> framework bits, maybe there is one in SL too?)
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: ozsilverlight-boun...@ozsilverlight.com
> [mailto:ozsilverlight-boun...@ozsilverlight.com] On Behalf Of
> ton...@tpg.com.au
> Sent: Friday, 12 March 2010 9:20 AM
> To: ozSilverlight
> Subject: RE: The verboseness of Visibility
>
> Cool, at least now I know the reason!
>
> Thanks.
>
>
> On Fri, Mar 12th, 2010 at 10:10 AM, ste...@snagy.name wrote:
>
> > No idea about this in SL but in WPF we have the same. Visibility DOES
> >
> > have 3 states: Visible, Hidden, Collapsed.
> >
> > Hidden is much differen from collapsed - a hidden object will still
> >
> > take the same amount of real estate such that if you have items
> > stacked and you set the first one as hidden, the second item will be
> >
> > in the same position still. However if you collapse the first item,
> >
> > the second item will move up to assume its spot. So collapsing works
> >
> > much better for flow layouts.
> >
> > For people in WPF world, they're used to this tri-state and a
> > BoolToVisibilityConverter is a 2 second job. (you all have a master
> >
> > resource dictionary for all these common reusable elements right?).
> >
> > Perhaps the SL change is the first step towards supporting this
> > tri-state?
> >
> > Quoting Mark <markspambus...@gmail.com>:
> >
> > > Yeah, I've thought about this too. I use a converter and so the
> > View Model
> > > can just use a bool, but it does seem like an unnecessary step.
> > >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: ozsilverlight-boun...@ozsilverlight.com
> > > [mailto:ozsilverlight-boun...@ozsilverlight.com] On Behalf Of
> > > ton...@tpg.com.au
> > > Sent: Friday, 12 March 2010 11:31 a.m.
> > > To: ozsilverlight@ozsilverlight.com
> > > Subject: The verboseness of Visibility
> > >
> > > Hi all,
> > >
> > > Does anyone else get annoyed at the extra hastle required to set
> > and bind
> > > the Visibility property?
> > >
> > > I mean, how easy was it in the "old days" to simply set
> > IsVisible=true or
> > > IsVisible=false? You didn't
> > > need a Visibility to Bool converter, which is extra unneccessary
> > processing,
> > > and an extra point of
> > > failure if it's forgotten, and more text to make mistakes.
> > >
> > > I mean, come on, there are only two states. There will never be a
> > third
> > > state. Instead of writing in
> > > my code:
> > >
> > > TermTextBox.IsVisible = MyBoolVar;
> > >
> > > I have to write something like:
> > > TermTextBox.Visibility = (MyBoolVar ? Visibility.Visible :
> > > Visibility.Collapsed);
> > >
> > > Does it somehow give it extra contextual meaning for all the extra
> > effort?
> > > No.
> > >
> > > Can there be a third state, somehow semi-visible. No - that would
> > be handled
> > > via an opacity or
> > > animation.
> > >
> > > There is only a single meaning!
> > >
> > > It's Friday, bring it on!
> > >
> > > Regards,
> > > Tony
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > ozsilverlight mailing list
> > > ozsilverlight@ozsilverlight.com
> > > http://prdlxvm0001.codify.net/mailman/listinfo/ozsilverlight
> > >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > ozsilverlight mailing list
> > ozsilverlight@ozsilverlight.com
> > http://prdlxvm0001.codify.net/mailman/listinfo/ozsilverlight
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> ozsilverlight mailing list
> ozsilverlight@ozsilverlight.com
> http://prdlxvm0001.codify.net/mailman/listinfo/ozsilverlight
>
> _______________________________________________
> ozsilverlight mailing list
> ozsilverlight@ozsilverlight.com
> http://prdlxvm0001.codify.net/mailman/listinfo/ozsilverlight
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> ozsilverlight mailing list
> ozsilverlight@ozsilverlight.com
> http://prdlxvm0001.codify.net/mailman/listinfo/ozsilverlight
>
--
Paul Stovell
_______________________________________________
ozsilverlight mailing list
ozsilverlight@ozsilverlight.com
http://prdlxvm0001.codify.net/mailman/listinfo/ozsilverlight
