The only case that I can think of where minimum width and explicit width work together is when the column says "This is the size I want to be but if you do need to resize me you shouldn't squash me down to any more than the minimum". The bound check on that is just to make sure the minimum width is not greater then width. Should an exception be thrown in this case or just set minimum width to width?
On Thu, 17 Sep 2009 09:41:33 am Greg Brown wrote: > I just mean checking an explicitly set width value (i.e. not -1 and > not relative) against min. width, and vice versa. Of course, if we > defined it as the "minumum automatically determined width" vs. a > literal minimum width, then we wouldn't have to do that. > > I'm not sure what the best solution is - just throwing some ideas out. > > On Sep 16, 2009, at 7:37 PM, Scott Lanham wrote: > > I am happy to do more but I don't know what you mean by bounds > > checking. I can > > probably guess as to what the property change events should be. > > > > On Thu, 17 Sep 2009 09:30:41 am Greg Brown wrote: > >> I like it. We'll need to do some bounds checking and fire property > >> change events, but it does seem like a useful feature. Want to take a > >> stab at rounding it out? > >> > >> On Sep 16, 2009, at 7:13 PM, Scott Lanham wrote: > >>> Hi, > >>> > >>> Just another QADH ( Quick and Dirty Hack ). I don't expect this is > >>> up to the > >>> standard you guys like. > >>> > >>> I was playing around with resizing a TableView that is within a > >>> ScrollPane > >>> that is within a SplitPane and realised that I didn't want relative > >>> sized > >>> column widths to shrink to nothing before the horizontal scroll bar > >>> kicked in. > >>> I also wanted to set a minimum width for auto sized column widths > >>> (-1) so that > >>> the header wasn't obscured. > >>> > >>> What I did to implement this is attached. > >>> > >>> Cheers, > >>> > >>> Scott. > >>> <pivot_svn_patch_20090917_01.diff>
