U++ framework: TreeCtrl » [solved] Can we get the private members of TreeCtrl made protected?

Home » U++ Library support » TreeCtrl » [solved] Can we get the private members of TreeCtrl made protected?

Show: Today's Messages :: Polls :: Message Navigator
E-mail to friend

[solved] Can we get the private members of TreeCtrl made protected? [message #44753]

Tue, 16 June 2015 15:59

cbpporter
Messages: 1428
Registered: September 2007

Ultimate Contributor

I created a custom TreeCtrl than only overrides Paint for prettier display of a list of trees and some members used by Paint are private.

[Updated on: Tue, 03 January 2017 11:57]

Report message to a moderator

Re: Can we get the private members of TreeCtrl made protected? [message #44756 is a reply to message #44753]

Wed, 17 June 2015 09:04

koldo
Messages: 3464
Registered: August 2008

Senior Veteran

Could you show some pictures of it?

Best regards
Iñaki

Report message to a moderator

Re: Can we get the private members of TreeCtrl made protected? [message #44758 is a reply to message #44756]

Wed, 17 June 2015 11:10

cbpporter
Messages: 1428
Registered: September 2007

Ultimate Contributor

Sure!

I created a custom TreeCtrl. Normally, the tree control is designed for a single root kind of structure. Even when not displaying the root node, there is still a line pointing upwards and it looks like a tree.

My change is about making it behave like a list of trees. Each entry in that list is a root of a tree, but they do not have a parent. I also changed the way lines are displayed for children nodes, enhanced IMHO for minor aesthetics.

In my particular case, I use this tree control to display folders from a classpath. That's why some folders are amrked with an "x", to show that they are invalid.

I implemented this only changing a few lines in the TreeCtrl::Paint override.

If you wish, I can give you the exact members than need to be made protected.

Attachment: tree.png
(Size: 2.45KB, Downloaded 1158 times)

Report message to a moderator

Re: Can we get the private members of TreeCtrl made protected? [message #44811 is a reply to message #44758]

Thu, 02 July 2015 14:01

cbpporter
Messages: 1428
Registered: September 2007

Ultimate Contributor

Here is the list of things I need protected for my Paint:

protected:
	struct Item : Node {
		union {
			int            parent;
			int            freelink;
		};

		bool           free;
		bool           isopen;
		bool           sel;
		Vector<int>    child;
		int            linei;

		Size GetValueSize(const Display *treedisplay) const;
		Size GetCtrlSize() const;
		Size GetSize(const Display *treedisplay) const;

		Item() { isopen = false; linei = -1; parent = -1; canselect = true; sel = false; free = false; }
	};
	struct Line : Moveable<Line> {
		int  level;
		int  itemi;
		int  ll;
		int  y;
	};
	
	ScrollBars   sb;	
	Scroller     scroller;
	bool         nobg;
	int          levelcx;
	bool         noroot;
	Vector<Line> line;	
	Array<Item>  item;	
	int          dropitem, dropinsert;
	bool         highlight_ctrl;		
	int          cursor;
	bool         nocursor;
	bool         multiselect;
	
	const Display *display;
	
	int    FindLine(int y) const;
	const Display *GetStyle(int i, Color& fg, Color& bg, dword& st);

Report message to a moderator

Re: Can we get the private members of TreeCtrl made protected? [message #44874 is a reply to message #44811]

Sun, 12 July 2015 09:51

mirek
Messages: 14291
Registered: November 2005

Ultimate Member

I do not know. Generally, things are private to maintain narrow interface. If they become protected, they become part of interface.

OTOH, I like the functionality you propose. I suggest adding this to regular TreeCtrl as option... (files please?)

Mirek

Report message to a moderator

Re: Can we get the private members of TreeCtrl made protected? [message #44883 is a reply to message #44874]

Thu, 16 July 2015 10:37

cbpporter
Messages: 1428
Registered: September 2007

Ultimate Contributor

How about this?

Attachment: TreeCtrl.cpp
(Size: 35.88KB, Downloaded 460 times)
Attachment: TreeCtrl.h
(Size: 15.61KB, Downloaded 751 times)

Report message to a moderator

Re: Can we get the private members of TreeCtrl made protected? [message #45078 is a reply to message #44883]

Fri, 28 August 2015 08:33

mirek
Messages: 14291
Registered: November 2005

Ultimate Member

Sorry for the delay... applied.

However:

					op -= CtrlImg::cross().GetSize() / 2;
					w.DrawImage(op.x, op.y, imgEmpty);

Should not that be rather

					op -= imgEmpty.GetSize() / 2;
					w.DrawImage(op.x, op.y, imgEmpty);

?

Also, perhaps RenderMultiRoot should call NoRoot?

I have added docs, please check them too...

Mirek

[Updated on: Fri, 28 August 2015 09:01]

Report message to a moderator

Re: Can we get the private members of TreeCtrl made protected? [message #45079 is a reply to message #45078]

Fri, 28 August 2015 12:51

cbpporter
Messages: 1428
Registered: September 2007

Ultimate Contributor

Thanks!

Use any name that you think is best. I can adapt. Now if we resolve the TimeStopHR, I can use stock U++ again Smile

Report message to a moderator

Re: Can we get the private members of TreeCtrl made protected? [message #45083 is a reply to message #45079]

Sat, 29 August 2015 07:15

mirek
Messages: 14291
Registered: November 2005

Ultimate Member

cbpporter wrote on Fri, 28 August 2015 12:51

Thanks!

Use any name that you think is best. I can adapt. Now if we resolve the TimeStopHR, I can use stock U++ again .

Ops, looks like I have not explained myself well... (english not being my native language).

Please, what I ask about is not about names, but semantics:

- using imgEmpty dimension for calculation in TreeCtrl::Paint instead of surrogate 'cross'

- calling ('executing') NoRoot in RenderMultiRoot (becuse I believe that you need to call NoRoot anyway to make it active).

Mirek

Report message to a moderator

Re: Can we get the private members of TreeCtrl made protected? [message #45097 is a reply to message #45083]

Mon, 31 August 2015 12:35

cbpporter
Messages: 1428
Registered: September 2007

Ultimate Contributor

Oh, I see now.

Using "imgEmpty" for size calculations is indeed better.

As for calling NoRoot, this will have the side effect of forcing the display of the empty node icon for all users who call NoRoot right? That's partially why I added a new flag.

Report message to a moderator

Previous Topic:	Node id calculation after removal ?
Next Topic:	Manually set option in OptionTree

Goto Forum:

-=] Back to Top [=-

[ Syndicate this forum (XML) ] [

] [

]

Current Time: Sat Oct 17 05:32:51 GMT+2 2026

Total time taken to generate the page: 0.47496 seconds