|
From: Jeff H. <je...@ac...> - 2006-11-22 21:54:22
|
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 |