Re: [Tile-dev] a tale of 2 trees

[Jeff H. <je...@ac...>]

Kevin Walzer wrote:
> Jeff Hobbs wrote:
> > Csaba Nemethi wrote:
> >> problem if treeview wouldn't be integrated into the core.  The =
reason is=20
> >> that in the tile-enabled version of Tablelist I make use of some=20
> >> treeview-related elements, like Treeheading.border and =
Treeheading.cell.
> >=20
> > While this is an interesting aspect, it is not strictly in favor of=20
> > the treeview.  It is perhaps possible to have the elements without =
the=20
> > widget.
	...
> I think Csaba's point is well-taken.

well-taken or well-made?  His point is compelling to me, as =
tablelist_tile has
always been on my mind as something people use over treeview.  However, =
if it
only means defining from elements versus creation of a widget that =
(arguably)
very few people find useful, then that may be the way to go.

> bindings via other means. My guess is that there are probably=20
> more developers using tablelist_tile instead of treeview.

Mine as well, many more.  However, I am fully open to users of treeview =
making
the case that the existing widget provides "good enough" functionality.

Jeff