[Fixes #763] Introduced labelled checkboxes#765
Conversation
michalfita
force-pushed
the
issue/763/improve-checkbox-ux
branch
from
7fbb78b to
cfdc5dd
Compare
|
Thanks for the work! I merged main into this branch (solving minor conflicts that arose when views became One remark: the example now shows 2 ways to make groups of checkboxes: the "manual way" (for toppings) and the "managed way" (for extras). To keep the example simple, I think we can get rid of the manual way and only show how to use the multichoice group. Instead, we could include a couple of "non-grouped" checkboxes, to show that it's still an option for single options. Or not, since that's already covered in the "list_view" example. In that case, I would rename the checkbox example to checkbox_group or multichoice_group. |
|
@gyscos Oh man, it's been a while since I've been on this... Finding time to go back to this may be close to impossible in a next few weeks. |
|
@gyscos I forgot about this PR until I went back to Cursive for something I'd like to implement. I've aligned the code with |
gyscos
left a comment
gyscos
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Thanks again for the PR!
Just a few minor details.
Also, are the two examples different?
Now, examples are even more different. I think they'd work well for someone trying to consider various options how to use checkboxes. |
| .cloned() | ||
| .map(|item| item.value) |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
You might be able to switch the two around, so it only clones the Arc<T>, which means you don't need to implement Clone for Item<T> anymore.
|
Thanks again for the work! |
2 participants
Purpose
To address #763 and improve overall UX of using
Checkboxin the application.Scope
To do
CheckboxMultiChoiceto make application logic easierCheckboxandRadioButtonNotes
Commits bring changes incrementally, so I suggest reviewing them one by one and consider rejections based on changes in them as maybe not all PR would need to be rejected at once.
For now I do draft for first impression where I'm heading. I'm trying to not break original API, however, some alignment with
RadioButtonin future would do good.