Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!cs.utexas.edu!sun-barr!apple!bloom-beacon!WESTHAWK.UUCP!thp
From: thp@WESTHAWK.UUCP
Newsgroups: comp.windows.x
Subject: Re: Re: Reparenting Widgets
Message-ID: <8907070821.AA00229@westhawk.uucp>
Date: 7 Jul 89 08:21:05 GMT
Sender: daemon@bloom-beacon.MIT.EDU
Organization: The Internet
Lines: 26

> Mike L Patnode <mike@edu.calpoly.acs.cosmos> said:
> I think I'm beginning to realize the difference in my philosophy.  Everyone
> else considers most widgets a static object in the program.

I agree, could widget implementors please remember that their widgets may be
created/destroyed/changed interactively, possibly many times.

> Whenever I want to copy a widget, I run though the information in
> the attributes list, converting it to the appropiate types, build a Args
> list and recreate the widget.  Yuk!  This is what I would expect
> XtCopyWidget to do for me.
> Now the problem with using the widget's own argslist is that XtGetValues
> doesn't always work.

Well, if you want to "save" the results of an interaction with a widget,
(for inclusion in the "real" application, or to restore the display next time
the program is run) then you _have_ to be able to recreate the widget one
way or another. So unless XtCopyWidget() was much cheaper than the recreation
(and kit@expo.lcs.mit.edu expects it not to be) you might as well use the same
recreation method as the copy method too.

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
|Tim Panton, Westhawk Ltd.                                                   |
|Paper: Westhawk Ltd. 26 Rydal Grove, Helsby, Cheshire, WA6 OET. UK.         |
|Phone: +44 92822574             uucp : ..!mcvax!ukc!cam-cl!westhawk!thp     |
+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+