Alex Tweedly wrote:
>
> Up till now, everything's been fine and easy on the new resource editor
> - all self-contained within the resource editor itself.
>
> But for the "new naming rules", I'd really like those rules to be
> maintained and used over multiple incantations of the resource editor -
> which means I need to store the info about which names/labels/texts are
> user-specified and which are derived. The obvious place to put this is
> in a new attribute (actually, 2 new attributes) of a component - which
> means changing Pythoncard/widget.py
>
> I think adding new attributes is "safe" - can't see how it would
> adversely impact anything - but it means changes outside the editor
> itself. Additional attributes are simply ignored of the resource file
> is read in by resource.ResourceFile so the resource files are still good
> to use with earlier version of Pythoncard or earlier versions of the
> resourceEditor.
>
> Would anyone object to my adding a new attribute or two, for use only
> (currently, at least) within the resource editor ?
>
> How about another attribute, for use with geometry manager(s) / sizers,
> etc. ?
> For this, I'd propose a generically named attribute per component - just
> one string, packed with info as needed - and then it can be used by any
> geometry schemes that want to use it.
>
>
Sounds like it's time to check your changes into CVS (am I beginning to
repeat myself?). I have no objection to adding an attribute for your new
naming rules. You explained quite well how this will work in your other
message(s) and persisting it across sessions looks like a good idea to me.
As I may have mentioned before probably the best way to do this is in a
new CVS branch. When your changes are in, tested and working like a
charm we can then merge them back into the main body of the code and
think about a 0.9 release - but I'm getting ahead of myself ;-)
As for another geometry attribute - I'd like to see a little more
thought and/or use cases before we add anything. And if we do get that
far having a single attribute with multiple values/meanings is
definitely a no-no as far as I'm concerned.
Regards,
Andy
--
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From the desk of Andrew J Todd esq - http://www.halfcooked.com/
|
