Re: Widget states for 3.0 (and 2.18?)

[Thorsten Wilms <t_w_ freenet de>]

On Wed, 2009-08-19 at 23:38 -0400, Paul Davis wrote:

> its hard for me to see anything other than
> 
>           active/inactive
>           sensitive/insensitive
> 
> that are required to be mutually exclusive. its only "paired states"
> that require this kind of thing, and if we have 2 of them already,
> thats probably just about enough. am i missing something?

What would be special about those pairs? Other states could be seen as
pairs, too:
  focused/unfocused
  default/not default
  ...

So all just boolean, actually.

I thought the issue was that currently states that shouldn't be mutually
exclusive are.

However, insensitive is special, as it makes everything else
meaningless.


-- 
Thorsten Wilms

thorwil's design for free software:
http://thorwil.wordpress.com/