| |
| |
Is `int set_size(Fl_Widget *w) const;` correct, or
should it be `int get_size(Fl_Widget *w) const;`
with a 'g'. Since it's `const`, it's only returning something, and
not setting anything.
Yes, it is returning whether `void set_size(...)`has been called on
this widget. The naming follows (ehm, I tried to follow) the good
old FLTK convention that the setter and getter methods have the same
name.
https://www.fltk.org/doc-1.4/classFl__Flex.html#a3235849fc0e99512d76c0048de68e6a8
Setter(s):
void Fl_Flex::set_size(Fl_Widget &w, int size)
void Fl_Flex::set_size(Fl_Widget *w, int size)
Getter:
int Fl_Flex::set_size(Fl_Widget *w) const
I admit that the "set_" prefix of the setter method makes this
confusing because the getter doesn't set anything. I'm open for
better suggestions, and since FLTK 1.4.0 has not yet been released
we can IMHO still change this if we decide to do so.
BTW, for history: in the original contribution the setter was
SetSize() and there was no getter method.
Returning an int rather than bool is always FLTK convention.
As far as I have seen proposals, here are my comments:
hasSize(): -1 (violates FLTK conventions)
has_size(): naming is OK, but IMHO too general. Although it
corresponds to set_size(), my gut feeling is that this is confusing
as well (every widget has a size, right?).
check_size(): similar to has_size(), IMHO too general.
is_fixed(), has_fixed_size(): these are my personal favorites so
far, the latter more than the former.
is_fixed_size() would IMHO be another good option.
Are there more proposals? Votes?
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "fltk.coredev" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to fltkcoredev+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/fltkcoredev/53e76fb5-e588-f110-23d2-1821732ecafe%40online.de.
[ Direct Link to Message ] | |
|
| |
