Dnia sobota, 7 października 2006 09:23, napisałeś: > There is a new version at: > > http://haridara.googlepages.com/forms.vim > > Significant changes being: > - Support for disabling fields.
This may be question of gusto but IMO disabled field should be visible but greyed out, not completely hidden. I know some usability studies favor hiding it but it is usually in GUI when disabled element is completely removed, empty lines in Vim form look strange. Rest feels very nice. Thanks for fixing multiple same-hotkeys problem. > > I modified the demo to include both enabling/disabling fields as well as > validation (zip field). When inserting non-valid data it is almost impossible to leave zip field. At least some warning message would be appropriate. This is not for forms stuff but demoform should set good standards for interaction :) > On Thu, 5 Oct 2006 at 1:19pm, Mikolaj Machowski wrote: > > <C-N>, <C-P>? It should work everywhere and is quite natural for Vim > > users (IMO). > > Now <C-N> and <C-P> also work like <Tab> and <S-Tab>. Thanks. It has problems when leaving combobox backward but so far it is the best way to navigate in Linux terminal. > > I would expect some simplifying in use. For example why explicitly > > declare them? Create listeners automatically. > > I am not still clear. How can you create listeners automatically? Can > you give some example? Maybe by comparison. Now creation of form is: 1. Create listener 2. Define listener functions 3. Create form (g:forms#form.new) 4. Add fields and in buttons declare listener explicitly 5. Add loop to add listener to all other fields 6. Add listener events functions Steps 1. 5. and second half of 4. IMO are not really necessary. Make it: 1. Create form (g:forms#form.new) 2. Define listener functions 3. Add fields 4. Add listener events functions Creation of listener could be done in form.new depending on argument of call. > > > - Validators. > > > > Local validation (onBlur event) can be already done. Problem is when > > doing after pressing OK. Hmm, in fact it can be also done but is > > boring ;) to do. Some API for that would be good. > > How was onBlur event possible? Previously you could do validation in the > valueChanged() callback, but you couldn't constrain the focus, but the > new isValid() callback allows that. My mistake, looked like valueChanged works in way of onBlur. > > Title may be declared. Make it support for non showing it, like:: > > What is the use of declaring it when not showing? Are you thinking of it > as an identifier, like a name for fields? Yes. > > One change which would be good to introduce before official beta: > > obligatory fields. As I wrote earlier - full validation if possible > > but laborious. And declaring it in API should allow for some emphasis > > (highlighting?). > > Does the new isValid() callback meet your expectations? Sorry, don't have time to test it but I suspect this is exactly what I want. m.
