On 7/12/2019 8:46 AM, Simon Richter wrote:
> Hi,
>
> My layout would be
>
> m_footprintListBox->Bind( wxEVT_RIGHT_DOWN,
> [this]( wxMouseEvent& )
> {
> this->PopupMenu( this->m_footprintContextMenu );
> } );
I like the way this looks compared to the other
Ian,
I would prefer that we not mix event handling styles unless there is a
good reason such as dynamically binding/unbinding for adding temporary
event handling. For new code, I'm fine with either method with the
caveat that all of the Bind calls be defined in the same function rather
than
On 2019-07-12 08:29, Jeff Young wrote:
These are currently reasonably common in the code:
1)
m_footprintListBox->Bind( wxEVT_RIGHT_DOWN, [this]( wxMouseEvent& ) {
this->PopupMenu( this->m_footprintContextMenu ); } );
2)
m_footprintListBox->Bind( wxEVT_RIGHT_DOWN, [this]( wxMouseEvent& )
Hi,
> I prefer the way Simon has it formatted, since the lambda follows the
> general function formatting guidelines. I am indifferent to the grouping of
> arguments around it though, and the clang-format script would seem to
> prefer doing it this way:
> function( arg1, arg2, arg3, arg4, arg5,
I prefer the way Simon has it formatted, since the lambda follows the
general function formatting guidelines. I am indifferent to the grouping of
arguments around it though, and the clang-format script would seem to
prefer doing it this way:
function( arg1, arg2, arg3, arg4, arg5,
arg6,
Hi,
My layout would be
m_footprintListBox->Bind( wxEVT_RIGHT_DOWN,
[this]( wxMouseEvent& )
{
this->PopupMenu( this->m_footprintContextMenu );
} );
Rationale:
- it follows the "indent twice for round parentheses" rule
- the lambda begins on the first
These are currently reasonably common in the code:
1)
m_footprintListBox->Bind( wxEVT_RIGHT_DOWN, [this]( wxMouseEvent& ) {
this->PopupMenu(
this->m_footprintContextMenu ); } );
2)
m_footprintListBox->Bind( wxEVT_RIGHT_DOWN, [this]( wxMouseEvent& ) {
The higher SNR was one reason why I was thinking of switching the handlers
over to them, since then we don't need the separate function
declaration/function body, and it also makes it clearer what the actions
do. For instance this is one that I have added during my work on cvpcb for
the context
We already have a lot of classes which use both.
FWIW, the wxWidgets folks encourage Bind.
As for lamdas, I think they’re pretty rare (for this use) in the code at
present. But they do appear to result in a higher signal-to-noise ratio for
very short handlers.
While we’re on the subject, we
Hi,
On Fri, Jul 12, 2019 at 11:11:21AM +0200, Ian McInerney wrote:
> Other windows seem to use the Bind method with lambda functions for these
> small functions, and I have used them as well for some new bindings for the
> actionization when needed. My main question is, is it acceptable to also
This is mainly a code style/implementation question about what should be
used going forward. I am in the process of going through CVPCB and
converting it to actions, and also implementing the
copy/paste/delete/undo/redo features. This necessitates changes to the
event table (mainly removal of
11 matches
Mail list logo
