altID

[David Bovill]

On 28/05/07, Richard Gaskin <ambassador at fourthworld.com> wrote:

> If you're referring to sub-components within a group which is acting as
> a custom control, do you really want users to be able to rename those?
> If there's a need, would it make more sense to do so as a property
> setting of the containing group, where it could be managed?


 An example for me would my my "tree view", or your "table view" - a user
may place a couple of these on a card and then want to script them easily.
Yes, they can refer to "the tree_Field of group 1". But this is forcing the
user to use a new form of syntax which they may not be used to - so I'd like
them to be able to rename the field to whatever they like - now the field is
part of a group with a title with drop down menus and context menu for the
lines... - that group is called the "tree view". For the last few years i
have been using name abstraction in the form a look-up table (custom
property) in the group -trapping for the nameChanged message to allow this
functonality. My thought now is that I can use the altID to the same effect.

As for the "custom control" group itself, yes, it should be renamable,
> and that should be easy to accommodate.


Yes users can always re-name the top-groups so you can have "the tree_Field
of group "First Tree" - that bit is easy - it gets harder when you want to
be able to allow arbitrary levels of nesting - for instance a tree view
inside of an outline view inside of a layout view.
Then if you can name a component (I use the word "view"), you should be able
to rename a sub-component.