You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
In order to to have good and easy-to-define UI layout, we need more layout functionality than the current basis of “minimum size” boxes only.
In particular, I think that we need something I don't yet have a good name for but I've been calling “base-box”, which is a “preferred” size that is neither minimal nor maximal, which primarily flows from parents to children during layout. For example,
The base-box of the HUD layout should be a box that fits fully within the area of the screen, separate from margin/border/overscan space, and in the depth axis, defines the plane in which the HUD widgets should lie.
In a vertical stack of buttons, the base-box is chosen to fit the widest button label, and makes all the buttons that wide.
Widgets can stick out past the base-box as necessary to fit their content. LayoutGrants go from having only a maximum bounds they are allowed to draw in, to also having the base-box which they can try to fit themselves into.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
In order to to have good and easy-to-define UI layout, we need more layout functionality than the current basis of “minimum size” boxes only.
In particular, I think that we need something I don't yet have a good name for but I've been calling “base-box”, which is a “preferred” size that is neither minimal nor maximal, which primarily flows from parents to children during layout. For example,
Widgets can stick out past the base-box as necessary to fit their content.
LayoutGrant
s go from having only a maximum bounds they are allowed to draw in, to also having the base-box which they can try to fit themselves into.The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: