On 14 August 2011 10:17, Roger and Beth Whitcomb
wrote:
> The main purpose for my proposal wasn't to put these three classes together,
> but rather to abstract some of the common functionality so that this
> functionality could be manipulated in common for any of the three types of
> fields. So,
On 14 August 2011 04:27, DreamTangerine wrote:
> OK, I see your point of view and maybe you are right with
> List/Table/Tree views (I need to think more about it), but in the case
> of text components, here are my points :
>
> * Three classes with the word "Text" that are also "Component", seem
>
The main purpose for my proposal wasn't to put these three classes
together, but rather to abstract some of the common functionality so
that this functionality could be manipulated in common for any of the
three types of fields. So, it is a little bit different than what it
sounds like you're
OK, I see your point of view and maybe you are right with
List/Table/Tree views (I need to think more about it), but in the case
of text components, here are my points :
* Three classes with the word "Text" that are also "Component", seem
like share a lot of functionality and need a common class.
The new patch looks good in ComponentExplorer.
I'll take a look at it more closely as soon as I find the time.
On 13 August 2011 04:26, Edvin Syse wrote:
> Thanks again, Chris. I have supplied a new patch that fixes issues 2-4 below.
>
> I'm very grateful that you take the time to test this, it's
