Re: Organising the xwt namespace

> Do you think that we can make a convention that non-physical templates
> must end in "-able"?  I would prefer that over forking the namespace in
> order to keep with the mantra of "fork the namespace only when that is
> the only way to accomplish your goal".

Not everything can end in 'able'.  Nor is everything suited by ending in
'able'.

eg redirectable.xwt is just wrong, redirect.xwt is accurate, the xwt
contains a redirect and redirect.xwt assists by redirecting various other
properties (text, textcolor, font, color, orient).  The widget that uses
redirect is not itself redirectable.  It just contains a redirect.

Another example is selection_mux (which is due to be renamed when a better
name is suggested).  The widget that preapplies this is part of a mutually
exclusive selection group, not 'mutually exclusive selectable'.  (Actually,
maybe it is, not sure on that one.)

Having the behaviours separated out just makes using them easier.  You're
looking at a set of behaviours to select from, rather than having to
manually filter out the behaviours from all the widgets.  Since it's in a
'sub' namespace, it's not really forking the namespace.

Also, they are templates that you're average user just won't be using.
_______________________________________________
http://lists.xwt.org/listinfo/dev