[wxPython-users] Re: Default Sizers, First Draft (was Re: [wxPython-users]

[Robin Dunn]

Michael Hipp wrote:
> I agree it's an oddball, but an indispensable one. Grouping controls
> with a static box is a necessity. And having those controls contained
> in a sizer that shadows the static box seems like the obvious
> solution. Or maybe if there were just a simple call to "Add()" a
> sizer to a static box. I've always thought the static box concept in
> wx was a bit odd as it seems like it ought to be a container.
> 

Historically there have been some platform quirks that have made it 
difficult to do that.  One platform the items couldn't be children of 
the static box, and another platform they work much better if they are, 
etc.  I think that has all been resolved now, but IIRC to make the 
switch to static box as container it is such that the current static box 
as sibling code would break and so what do you do will all the current 
code and tools that exist today?  It's a question that wx-dev has yet to 
answer.

-- 
Robin Dunn
Software Craftsman
http://wxPython.org  Java give you jitters?  Relax with wxPython!