"David Turner" <dkturner@telkomsa.net> writes:
You're still missing the point. The fact that the owning window constructs the child is an implementation detail that has nothing to do with the window structure/layout the user is trying to represent. The syntax for describing a window should be declarative, not imperative.
I'm well aware of the fact that owner windows are an implementation detail. I also know full well that if I wanted to, I could cope with a change of ownership.
The point *I'm* making is that there are design and utility considerations as well as implementation considerations. By design, the window is the factory for all other widgets. A button in one window isn't necessarily the same thing as a button in another window; just as a bold font in one document isn't necessarily the same as a bold font in another.
One cannot say in general that elements can be exchanged between documents. Similarly, one cannot say in general that widgets can be exchanged between windows.
If you think this is a weak argument, then I'll be happy to change the interface. But please think very carefully about all the implications of having free widgets first. I believe this slight interface oddity is a small price to pay.
I'm not interested in the free/not free debate, and I don't have an opinion on it. I'm only interested in the syntax for building windows. -- Dave Abrahams Boost Consulting www.boost-consulting.com