Ken Halter said:
Isn't that beautiful... even more broken code and migration headaches. I
suppose people think that's just "wonderful", eh? geez... even the arrow
keys work differently when trying to position controls. "Glitter" instead
of functionality. Perfect.
btw, the Visual Studio I use daily "requires skill and knowledge"... isn't
that the favorite "I'm better than you" statement?. Some of that
"knowledge" says controls don't change their appearance simply because
their container is disabled. They never have. But, it's a "brave new
world", right? Where everything changes within a moments notice (or the
next Windows Update)
Uhm, breathe Ken, breathe.
I take it from that hysteria posted above the answer to my question was no
you hadn't actually fired up Visual Studio and tested it.
As to your other comments, I guess you are trying to say the bad behavior of
VB6 not rendering buttons as disabled if the container is disabled is
somehow good because that's all you know ? In VB6 if you write code such as
Command1.Enabled = Not Command1.Enabled, no matter what your control won't
get rendered differently at runtime if the container is disabled. This goes
against the basic programming principles of the object defining it's own
appearance and windows guidelines. And what's even worse is if you set
Enabled to false at design time, then the button will be displayed as
disabled. But should you toggle that, you cannot get it back to that state
without first enabling the container. That's right, in VB6 with the
container disabled, you can go from button drawing as disabled to normal but
never back. Just because that's the behavior you know, does not make it
right. It's great .NET addressed those kind of issues properly.