Вы искали: treectrl (Чешский - Английский)

-treectrl::treectrl()
-treectrl::treectrl()

(because treectrl uses)
settings()

all you need to change is in treectrl::paint().
all you need to change is in treectrl::paint().

all edit controls as well as treectrl and arrayctrl now support it.
all edit controls as well as treectrl and arrayctrl now support it.

there is also a treectrl, filled in same way as trectrldnd example,
there is also a treectrl, filled in same way as trectrldnd example,

is all the code that would need to be changed in the treectrl::paint function?
is all the code that would need to be changed in the treectrl::paint function?

general improvement of the group tree neede (some of the problems are limitations with treectrl)
general improvement of the group tree neede (some of the problems are limitations with treectrl)

my users want to be able to pick up an object from my treectrl and drop it into another instance of my software.
my users want to be able to pick up an object from my treectrl and drop it into another instance of my software.

if that's what you mean, treectrl, for one, declares its scrollbars sb member as private.
if that's what you mean, treectrl, for one, declares its scrollbars sb member as private.

if i figure out how to change the code, do i have to maintain my own treectrl.cpp or can an extra style be added to ctrllib treectrl?
if i figure out how to change the code, do i have to maintain my own treectrl.cpp or can an extra style be added to ctrllib treectrl?

config dialog tree - i'll have to look at this, it used to work but as koldo has said there seem to have been some changes to treectrl.
config dialog tree - i'll have to look at this, it used to work but as koldo has said there seem to have been some changes to treectrl.

anyway, i think the much easier approach is not to try to wrangle with the original design of treectrl and provide editstring for each node (and not single one for the whole thing).
anyway, i think the much easier approach is not to try to wrangle with the original design of treectrl and provide editstring for each node (and not single one for the whole thing).

having said that, i ask: shouldn't it be hard-coded this way in future upp releases for treectrl and arrayctrl as well as for other widgets that use scrollbars?
having said that, i ask: shouldn't it be hard-coded this way in future upp releases for treectrl and arrayctrl as well as for other widgets that use scrollbars?

gui_app_main { treectrl tree; tree.multiselect(true); topwindow wnd; wnd.add(tree.sizepos()); int id = tree.add(0, treectrl::node("node1")); tree.selectone(id, true); assert(tree.getsel()[0] == id); //tree.selectone(id, false);//if comment => removed node stay selected and assertion in (*) failed //tree.clearselection();//solution: clearselection must be added to the top of remove method tree.remove(id); tree.add(0, treectrl::node("node2")); id = tree.add(0, treectrl::node("node3")); tree.selectone(id, true); assert(tree.getsel()[0] == id);//(*) wnd.run(); }
gui_app_main { treectrl tree; tree.multiselect(true); topwindow wnd; wnd.add(tree.sizepos()); int id = tree.add(0, treectrl::node("node1")); tree.selectone(id, true); assert(tree.getsel()[0] == id); //tree.selectone(id, false);//if comment => removed node stay selected and assertion in (*) failed //tree.clearselection();//solution: clearselection must be added to the top of remove method tree.remove(id); tree.add(0, treectrl::node("node2")); id = tree.add(0, treectrl::node("node3")); tree.selectone(id, true); assert(tree.getsel()[0] == id);//(*) wnd.run(); }