[Gambas-user] TreeView.Count value differs using qt rather than gtk

[Doriano Blengino]

Kadaitcha Man ha scritto:
> 2010/1/26 Doriano Blengino <doriano.blengino at ...1909...>:
>
>   
>> This is a more general problem of gambas syntax. Is Listbox1[5] the
>> sixth element of an array of listboxes, or the sixth element of
>> Listbox1?
>>     
>
> You are confabulating and conflating.
>   
At least, I *think*. You don't think enough, and prove of it is that 
more often than not you write two messages instead of one. You start to 
write too early.

You are not really catching the point. I am writing these things because 
I believe that it could help Benoit in some way - he expressed some 
doubt about wanting to have the count of both total elements and just 
children. If it was only for you, I had stop before. But we are on the 
way... if you want to get angry read on.
>> I never tried to make array of listboxes
>>     
>
> There you go then, hey. So, why do you ask me the answer to a problem
> you have never tried to solve for yourself?
>
> Anyway, the answer to your question is Is Listbox1[5] is the sixth
> element of [a control named] Listbox1.
>
> How do I know? Because I can read.
>
> The problem isn't 'a more general problem of gambas syntax". There is,
> at best, a problem with the documentation. If the documentation were
> clear and concise, which it is not, there would be no debate.
>   
I can speak about things I never tried because I *think*. Moreover, I 
didn't ask you to solve. I was "reporting", "arguing", "thinking", not 
"asking". Ok?
Anyway, I just tried - it doesn't work. If you read my previous mail, I 
wrote "I wonder if....". I was right - In fact, it does not work. This 
is first a problem of documentation, which lets you think you can make 
typed arrays, but this is not always true.
Second problem, the impossibility to make typed arrays is a limitation. 
You don't see it as a limitation because you are limited yourself - too 
lazy to think, may be, and I don't want to say you have limited 
experience or you are stupid.
>   
>> So, TreeView1.Children[0] would be a coherent way to address the first
>> children
>>     
>
> Perhaps it would be coherent, but if it is not also consistent, which
> it is not then it is wrong.
>   
When you will be able to explain why "it is not consistent", you will 
discover *you* are in error. But I doubt you can afford. It seems that 
you give importance to superficial things, without forcing your mind to 
go beyond comfortable and limited schemes. Before trying to argue with 
me, read some documentation about the plethora of other programming 
languages. Only then our discussions will elevate to a better degree.

While I am writing, I notice you have already answered. You can not even 
wait some minutes to reply.
Ok, this is the reply to your just arrived message:

> Tree1 is a TreeView, not a node.
> >>>
>   
> >>
> >> Therefore tv["Tree1"].Count = 2 is still true.
> >>
>   
> > No, it is false. tv["Tree1"].Children.Count is two.
>   
>
> Take a step back.
>
> If, as you say, tv["Tree1"].Children.Count is two, then, as I say,
> "tv["Tree1"].Count = 2 is still true", is true.
>
> HTH
It is me, now, who is getting stunned. Are these two expressions different?

    1.  tv["Tree1"].Count
    2.  tv["Tree1"].Children.Count

No? Then you are very confused.
Yes? Then they return two different results.

I repeat, Tree1 is the treeview itself. I called it tree1, and you 
called it tv. tv["tree1"] does not exist. I simply repeated your names 
to stress on the difference between ".Count" and ".Children.Count".
Anyway, you insist on this not-so-beautiful syntax of using strings 
inside square brackets (I will not loose time explaining the drawbacks 
of it), so I used it too in an attempt to speed up things.

I am asking myself whether there is some sense in continuing this 
discussion. It depends on your next message. If I get convinced you are 
really interested in exchanging opinions, and contribute to gambas and 
its users, ok. If I get convinced that you only like to piss off other 
persons, I will not reply. May be that I am wrong, but I have already 
showed enough patience.

Regards.