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
Proposal: Add Orientation Property to RadioButtons
Summary
Currently RadioButtons are arranged vertically. With the MaxColumns property, we can create a grid of RadioButtons. However they are arranged like this:
| Item 1 | Item 3 |
| Item 2 | Item 4 |
RadioButtons with Orientation="Horizontal" would be arranged like this:
| Item 1 | Item 2 |
| Item 3 | Item 4 |
Rationale
This is a very common way to arrange RadioButtons.
There are two reasons to implement this property:
Make a horizontal layout of RadioButtons trivial to do (no one should have to put MaxColumns="99" for such trivial layout)
Enable more precise control over how RadioButtons are arranged
This could be addressed by #2084, with a WrapPanel. I feel however that this would still be worth implementing, for simplicity and to make the functionality more obvious for beginners.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
This would also make a simple re-style for #2310 a lot easier as well, though you can kind of trick it by setting MaxColumns very high, though the spacing based on the largest item is a bit weird. It'd be nice if the Layout was just exposed and modifiable more easily for control which use ItemsRepeater.
Proposal: Add Orientation Property to RadioButtons
Summary
Currently RadioButtons are arranged vertically. With the MaxColumns property, we can create a grid of RadioButtons. However they are arranged like this:
| Item 1 | Item 3 |
| Item 2 | Item 4 |
RadioButtons with
Orientation="Horizontal"
would be arranged like this:| Item 1 | Item 2 |
| Item 3 | Item 4 |
Rationale
This is a very common way to arrange RadioButtons.
There are two reasons to implement this property:
MaxColumns="99"
for such trivial layout)This could be addressed by #2084, with a WrapPanel. I feel however that this would still be worth implementing, for simplicity and to make the functionality more obvious for beginners.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: