[Top][All Lists]

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

RE: Nested tables

From: pbc
Subject: RE: Nested tables
Date: Thu, 28 Mar 2002 01:07:50 +0100

>From: "Stephen F. Booth" <address@hidden>
>To: "'Geir Pedersen - Activio AS'" <address@hidden>,
>       <address@hidden>
>Subject: RE: Nested tables
>Date: Wed, 20 Mar 2002 23:43:29 -0500

>render itself in the destructor.  This approach was suggested by David
>McCombs, and is good, except that it is
>almost fully incompatible with the current scheme.   The code might

>/* create a table */
>  table(cout); 
>  {
>    tr(cout); 
>    {
>      /* inner table */
>      table(cout);
>      tr(cout).add(td("inner table"));
>    }
>  }
>  {
>    tr(cout);
>    td(cout).add(td("outer table"));
>  }
>} /* end table */

I personally think this is a little confusing- it took me a while to
figure out the example above!  And I haven't fully thought it through
yet.  But it is an alternative.

Nested elements (not only talbes) are very needed as can be seen from
many posts. The above solution looks good and it's so "close" to
writting pure html as it can get in C++, IMHO. I think everybody can get
used to it rather easy (after a while) and after that it seems to be
much more natural. As to compatibility with earlier versions of cgicc -
deafult parameter in HTMLElement constructor (..., bool Scope =
cgicc::options::Scope) will do it just fine. Options could be namespace
with global options and the Scope option could be false by default. This
way we don't break existing source and introducing new functionality at
the same time. What do you think ?

As always, I'm open to suggestions.

I'm glad you are. Are you going to fix source according to Alexander J.
Oss's suggestions ?

-- Piotr Dobrogost


Okresl Swoje potrzeby - my znajdziemy oferte za Ciebie!
[ ]

reply via email to

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