Re: deprecate qx.util.range

The ProgressBar contribution uses a class of the qx.util.range name
space, but not Range but IntegerRange (which is non-existent in 0.8).
Anybody porting the ProgressBar to 0.8 will have to re-invent a range
type if it is not provided by the framework.

The main point for me is that it seems to be a sensible thing to have a
general range data type anyway. The ProgressBar and the Slider classes
should make it obvious that a range type is a necessary thing to have in
a comprehensive framework.

It is a special kind of iterator, where the objects you iterate over
have a natural order. Iterators are such a common data types that many
programming languages provide them per default, at least in the form of
interfaces (e.g. Python).

So I would second keeping the qx.util.range.Range anyway. If you have
such a class you should have it in the most generic way (which rules out
qx.ui.form).

More specific classes should use the generic range class. I think it is
a case of lack of proper abstraction that there is a range
implementation in the qx.ui.form name space. qx.util is obviously much
more general than qx.ui.form!

That said, the current implementation in qx.util.range seems to be
rather deficient. You cannot specify a step width, nor does it have a
next() method to iterate over the range. So it seems the only thing you
can do with such ranges are inclusion tests, but not even for that is
there a suitable method. For reasons I don't know, this range data type
has been reduced to near uselessness.

So I suggest improving it to be a proper range type, and not
re-implement similar functionality in special-purpose name spaces (like
qx.ui.form).

T.

Martin Wittemann wrote:
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________
qooxdoo-devel mailing list
qooxdoo-devel@...
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/qooxdoo-devel