jonm@syma.sussex.ac.uk (Jonathan Meyer) (12/20/89)
Does it make sense to talk about callback lists as being a class property, as opposed to an instance property. ie. Can an event in a widget use CallCallback on a callback list that is defined in the Class structure of the widget. When a new procedure is registered on this callback lists, it effects all widgets of that class. In general, can resources be defined as class properties, as opposed to widget properties? I haven't seen this done, but it would be useful. Jon. PS. This news group gets so many letters, I can't keep up. Do others feel that there should be a comp.windows.xt, as well as a comp.windows.x ?
bschwart@bbn.com (Beverly I. Schwartz) (12/21/89)
In article <1929@syma.sussex.ac.uk> jonm@syma.sussex.ac.uk (Jonathan Meyer) writes: >PS. This news group gets so many letters, I can't keep up. Do others feel that >there should be a comp.windows.xt, as well as a comp.windows.x ? I'm all for it. And I would support also breaking into seperate widget groups - comp.windows.motif, etc. ==> Beverly Schwartz BBN Corporation <== ==> e-mail: bschwart@bbn.com Cambridge, Massachusetts 02138 <==
swick@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Ralph R. Swick) (12/21/89)
> Does it make sense to talk about callback lists as being a class property, as > opposed to an instance property. Perhaps it might from an abstract point of view, but Xt does not directly support class resources. In some cases, a widget implementation can go to extra lengths to modify class data (e.g. in an initialize procedure). In the particular case of callbacks, though, the current mechanism is intimately bound with instance data. It would take a new interface to be able to support (shared) callback lists in the class structure. > In general, can resources be defined as class properties, as > opposed to widget properties? You can certainly use some of the lower-level resource routines (e.g. XtGetSubvalues) to fill up class structures with things that from nearly all external appearance look identical to instance resources. Interesting concept; I've never actually considered it in this light. > Do others feel that > there should be a comp.windows.xt, as well as a comp.windows.x Won't help me, and the equivalent mail list+gateway here at expo would just add to our workload, but I'm not violently opposed (sorry, Bob :-).