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