Width of Dropdown Combo Boxes
GThiel
Surveyor
Is there any way or is there any plans on expanding the width of combo boxes. When selecting a Fill Style for example, only part of the texture name is displayed and it is very difficult to know that you are choosing the one that you want. Attached is a screen shot showing an example of what I mean.
Comments
Its one of the reasons I try to keep my own texture names as short as possible
I am sure that someone will be along shortly to clarify things a bit
Here are some pics of one of my own apps used for my Game
Pic 1 shows the design screen where coding changes are made
pic 2 shows that screen in use with the drop down
pic 3 shows the design screen with the width of the combo drop down changed from 151 to 50
pic 4 shows that screen in use
pic 5 shows another screen in the same app where I can create NPC with a name and physical appearance and an area where I can copy from the screen and paste into something like Realm Works
Of course, times change and needs change. Today, we typically use longer file names, and the abundance of fills also means longer names are needed to keep them unique and understandable, making this drop-down a bit on the smallish side today.
Changes are continually made to CC3+ to improve things all the time though, but not everything can be done at once. The list of "simple" changes that can be done is rather long, but doing them all takes time. Note that changing a dropdown in CC3+ is not quite as simple as you show in your example either, it is a bit more to it than just changing the width setting in a property box, the drawing routines for the elements in the list also needs to be updated to render properly in the larger box.
All that said, I too do hope they one day extend the size of that list. This was more a comment on the fact while not necessarily a difficult task, it is still actual code changes that needs to be changed and tested, and take a bit of time to do like everything else.
And a quick comment on how things have changed. When I began programming as a profession, I was programming in BASIC and variable names were limited to 2 characters and the external hard drive in the corner behind the computer measured 3 foot tall x 1 1/2 ft wide x 1 1/2 ft deep and held the massive amount of storage of 30 Megabytes!!! User interfaces were on a screen that measured 80 columns wide by 24 rows of which only 23 were actually usuable. Everything was text based with no graphics. I much prefer today's systems and languages.
As for modern languages, the CC3+ codebase is based on some pretty old code, which is why doing some things are slightly (or a lot) more complicated than you would expect. (Although it makes other things easy because you can draw on existing functionality)