From: Jonathan Gordon <jdgordy_at_gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 10 Oct 2011 19:24:37 +1100

On 10 October 2011 19:12, Dave Hooper <dave_at_beermex.com> wrote:
> I'm confused.
> So, skinned lists already implement a padding feature (it may be incomplete
> or buggy, but we'll get to that).
> The proposal is to introduce equivalent/similar functionality into the core.
> Rockbox will then have two implementations, one that people can choose to
> use when skinning, as well as a separate setting that 'just works' even if
> you don't use themes.
>
> Realistically, how many users use rockbox without a theme? Could the theme
> functionality be improved/expanded to address the concerns with the existing
> implementation?
>
> If not (if people really use rockbox without themes, but find the need this
> specific functionality) could the implementations not be unified in some
> way? Does rockbox really need two implementations of (as I understand it)
> the same functionality?
>
> Clearly I must be missing/misunderstanding something, but not clear what.

This is what I was trying to demonstrate with the screenshot and patch
before. the skinning engine doesn't currently deal with list padding
but it can easily, and if the default/hardcoded list uses the skin
engine then there is only one implementation.
Received on 2011-10-10