Re: O_STATIC implies 'special' justification, is this really necessary?

[Thomas Dickey]

On Wed, 10 Aug 2005, Frank van Vugt wrote:

> L.S.
>
> In form/frm_driver.c:183 a define can be found for
> Justification_Allowed(field). This check also makes sure that a field is
> O_STATIC. It looks like this check is only used as a guard to
> Perform/Undo_Justification() calls in frm_driver.c
>
> However, I'm wondering about the ratio behind this all. Is it really necessary
> to exclude dynamic fields from say right justification? I understand that
> there are some layout- and form-traversal-issues to pay attention to, but
> I've tried and disabled the check for O_STATIC and nothing obvious seems to
> be failing...
>
> Am I overlooking something here?

quick answer: I don't know, since that's code that Juergen wrote.
There may be (a) some compatibility issue, (b) an expectation that it
wouldn't work.  I'll have to read through the code and see if I can
give a better answer.

> FYI, I'm presenting data from a database to the user through a fixed-size form
> with fixed-size fields that are almost always 'too small'. Since I want the
> complete contents of the field data to be available to the user, I want the
> fieldbuffer to grow dynamically on a set_field_buffer() call and thus unset
> O_STATIC. Some if the info ideally should be aligned right, though.
>
>
>
> --
> Best,
>
>
>
>
> Frank.

--
Thomas E. Dickey
http://invisible-island.net
ftp://invisible-island.net