PureBasic Forums - English

Hi Alex,

A really good start...
Any chance of #PropertiesBox_Integer? (Please not to forget a leading '-' for negative numbers)
And how about #PropertiesBox_Float... with some way of defining the max number of digits either side of the decimal point? ###.#####?

Best regards
RichardL

Me again...
Sadly setting '#PB_String_Numeric' prevents negative numbers, so half of the numbers in the universe are feeling un-loved
RichardL

that's great thanks for sharing ....

Very nice Gadget, thanks

Did I miss the link to the source?

Thanks... I wouldn't harass you, but you said you posted the source.

Yeah, but in the other (newer) thread you said you posted the source, and this is the only one that showed up with search. It doesn't really seem to count, if you remove it...

It's really that simple: No source, no Tricks 'n' Tips.

it works without CanvasGadget. its a alternative gadget with more functions to srod's commercial solution.

No offence, but this offers nowhere near the facilities of my tBOX control; doesn't even come close. tBOX has more cell types, is far more configurable, offers a myriad of notifications regarding item changes etc. and, well, doesn't have the redrawing issues that yours exhibits! It exports an interface with 43 methods in it which you use to create and maintain the control etc. as opposed to your handful of functions.

As I say, no offence intended, but if you are going to compare this effort with something which has consumed many many hours of work then, well, you'd be better off checking out your facts first. tBOX is used in a number of commercial apps and is standing up very well with the demands placed upon it.

I have no problem with people releasing their own efforts (freely available or otherwise) and comparing/contrasting them with tBOX, but I think it only fair that such comparisons should be based upon a proper evaluation first rather than a comment which is quite simply misleading and untrue.

If someone makes available a freely available propertybox control which makes tBOX redundant, then I would happily remove tBOX (and possibly replace it with something else, who knows, time being what it is). It's all about progress. Must admit that I like Danillo's recent offering.

No need for me to calm down; I'm far from rattled.

mevedia.de wrote:I told everypony this was far away from perfect in past...

Now, what does that say about tBOX? If yours' is far from perfect, then according to your earlier statement, tBOX should be stood up against a wall and shot! And, to be honest, tBOX is too good for that. I say that because I use the thing very heavily myself; that's why I created it in the first place. And don't get me wrong, I am more than capable of producing unprecedented levels of crap when coding! I do it all the time.

Aye, I've produced more crap in 9 years of using Purebasic than all other users put together I reckon! It's just that, occasionally, like all of us, I do produce something which actually works and, again, like everyone, like to see it given a fair crack of the whip when being evaluated etc! If a good old honest evaluation concludes that tBOX is a steaming pile of sheep manure then that is fair enough; I would use such criticism constructively and start again. Either that or flush the thing down the toilet!

srod is right when he tries to defend his product from your false statement...

Just remove this and your done:

its a alternative gadget with more functions to srod's commercial solution.