Re: Dynamic sizing.

--- Wolfgang Thaller <[email protected]> wrote:
> I'd rather say
> 
> data SizeComponent = Fixed Int | Standard
> type SizeType = (SizeComponent, SizeComponent)
> (or data SizeType = Size SizeComponent
> SizeComponent)

> On the other hand, might we not want to query the
> "standard" size, so 
> that we can perhaps use it to align with another
> widget?

Of course.  We should always be able to query the
actual size.  How about size is not an attribute? 
Size could be a ro variable.  The attribute is the
SizePolicy.

SizePolicyType = 
  Fixed Int | -- A fixed, nonnegociable size
  MinimumSuf Int |  -- The Int is the minimum but it
                    -- can be expanded but without
                    -- benefit.
  MinimumExp Int |  -- The Int is the minimum and it
                    -- can be expanded with benefit.
  MaximumShr Int |  -- The int is the maximum size and
                    -- it can be shrunk.
  Preferred Int |   -- The Int is the preferred size
                    -- but it can be expanded without 
                    -- benefit or shrunk
  PreferredExp Int | --The int is the preferred size
                     --and it can be expanded with
                     --benefit or shrunk.
  Standard
  

> Question to all: Who is not familiar either with
> Java's GridBagLayout 
> or with Tcl's "grid" geometry manager?  (BTW: Is
> XmRowColumn the same 
> thing or something different?)
> That's the best way of managing dynamic layouts that
> I know. Any 
> reasons for not using something like that?

I'm used to using HBox's and VBox's.  Is a grid as
simple as I think it is?  If it is . . . HBox, VBox,
and GridBox seem to be a good addition.

David J. Sankel