[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: O_STATIC implies 'special' justification, is this really necessary?

From: Thomas Dickey
Subject: Re: O_STATIC implies 'special' justification, is this really necessary?
Date: Wed, 10 Aug 2005 11:44:43 -0400 (EDT)

On Wed, 10 Aug 2005, Frank van Vugt wrote:


In form/frm_driver.c:183 a define can be found for
Justification_Allowed(field). This check also makes sure that a field is
O_STATIC. It looks like this check is only used as a guard to
Perform/Undo_Justification() calls in frm_driver.c

However, I'm wondering about the ratio behind this all. Is it really necessary
to exclude dynamic fields from say right justification? I understand that
there are some layout- and form-traversal-issues to pay attention to, but
I've tried and disabled the check for O_STATIC and nothing obvious seems to
be failing...

Am I overlooking something here?

quick answer: I don't know, since that's code that Juergen wrote.
There may be (a) some compatibility issue, (b) an expectation that it
wouldn't work.  I'll have to read through the code and see if I can
give a better answer.

FYI, I'm presenting data from a database to the user through a fixed-size form
with fixed-size fields that are almost always 'too small'. Since I want the
complete contents of the field data to be available to the user, I want the
fieldbuffer to grow dynamically on a set_field_buffer() call and thus unset
O_STATIC. Some if the info ideally should be aligned right, though.



Thomas E. Dickey

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]