diff options
| author | corvid <corvid@lavabit.com> | 2013-04-19 01:16:38 +0000 |
|---|---|---|
| committer | corvid <corvid@lavabit.com> | 2013-04-19 01:16:38 +0000 |
| commit | 794907e571d19dca3c2e093c5964c157ffbc6342 (patch) | |
| tree | fccac5b2ef439594ef90ffed009c8e76711353f7 /test/unicode_test.cc | |
| parent | 1d3126bb1ea3bf667271fa07879256c344914352 (diff) | |
Fl_Browser instead of Fl_Tree for <select> list box.
Discussion:
http://lists.auriga.wearlab.de/pipermail/dillo-dev/2012-December/009604.html
http://lists.auriga.wearlab.de/pipermail/dillo-dev/2012-December/009609.html
Fl_Tree didn't handle the 18000-item list in
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/query.cgi?format=advanced so well,
plus it's relatively heavy, plus we've found bugs in it on occasion
because it's newer than Fl_Browser. Fl_Browser is naturally
closer to what we use than Fl_Tree is in its ordinary default
usage.
Why didn't I use Fl_Browser initially when going to fltk-1.3?
Documentation made it sound like fltk1 and fltk2's browsers were
quite different despite having the same name (I think the APIs
were rather dissimilar, although I don't feel it's worth my time
to verify that right now), and I believe I had the impression that
Fl_Browser was going to be too limited in some ways.
Diffstat (limited to 'test/unicode_test.cc')
0 files changed, 0 insertions, 0 deletions