Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!wuarchive!decwrl!shlump.nac.dec.com!shodha.dec.com!elvira!ridder
From: ridder@elvira.enet.dec.com (Hans Ridder)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.tech
Subject: Re: Mutual Exclude Gadgets
Keywords: Gadgets
Message-ID: <558@shodha.dec.com>
Date: 31 Dec 89 17:07:23 GMT
References: <953@lpami.wimsey.bc.ca> <9173@cbmvax.commodore.com> <22900@ut-emx.UUCP>
Sender: news@shodha.dec.com
Organization: Digital Equipment Corporation, Customer Support Center
Lines: 20

In article <22900@ut-emx.UUCP> hcobb@walt.cc.utexas.edu (Henry J. Cobb) writes:
> [Henry describes a method where the position of bits in the mutual
> exclude field *is not* related to the position of a gadget in the
> list]

It's a great idea.  I can see one problem though.  You can't have a
gadget "X" which excludes "Y", but "Y" doesn't exclude "X".  In other
words, with your suggestion, exclusion must be a two-way association.

I think most uses of exclusion could live with this though.  Are there
any usefull reasons why you would need one-way exclusion?  Although I
hate to use a "limited" solution to a problem which might restrict
future funtionality, this could be an answer.  Let's keep the
productive discussion up!

-hans
========================================================================
  Hans-Gabriel Ridder			Digital Equipment Corporation
  ridder@elvira.enet.dec.com		Customer Support Center
  ...decwrl!elvira.enet!ridder		Colorado Springs, CO