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 Moose-dev@iam.unibe.ch 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."