Hi,
I do not quite like that because of the impact to defined transmissions.
For example, adding:
stacker transmit from: #classes; to: #methods.
would lead to an error when the #classes pane would not be around. So, this would imply in having the creation of a dynamic transmission as well, but this will make it even harder to debug when a typo occurs in the pane names.
It is cleaner to use a dynamic presentation to decide about the different browsers. Or am I missing something?
Cheers,
Doru
On 25 Jul 2011, at 09:12, Damien Cassou wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> I'm working with glamour and was wondering if a dynamic stacker would
> be a good idea. It's use would be something like this:
>
> |stacker|
> stacker := GLMStacker new.
> stacker aPane: #methods.
> stacker aPane: #classes when: [:obj | obj isKindOf: Class].
>
>
> The default condition being [:obj | true], a stacker would only
> represent the panes for which the condition is true.
>
> What do you think?
>
> --
> Damien Cassou
>
http://damiencassou.seasidehosting.st>
> "Lambdas are relegated to relative obscurity until Java makes them
> popular by not having them." James Iry
> _______________________________________________
> Moose-dev mailing list
>
[hidden email]
>
https://www.iam.unibe.ch/mailman/listinfo/moose-dev--
www.tudorgirba.com
"Problem solving should be focused on describing
the problem in a way that makes the solution obvious."
_______________________________________________
Moose-dev mailing list
[hidden email]
https://www.iam.unibe.ch/mailman/listinfo/moose-dev
Locked
