How to removes frames at runtime

[MigGat]

Hi all,

The last thing that stops me from finishing my addon is how to add/remove frames into a parent frame.

The parent frame has an editbox and a "add" button, in order to add stuff to a table. Whenever this table is modified, I need to print all its content in a list attaching a "delete" button.

The thing is, I know hoe to ADD frames programatically, but have no idea how the delete all child frames in order to redraw the new modifies list.

Any help? Thanks!

[Layrajha]

What Blizzard seemed to do most of the time when I read their code was to create a table that contains references to a certain (usually fixed) number of frames. Whenever a frame is "added", you take the next frame in the table, configure it and show it. Whenever a frame is "removed", you hide it and update the table. Basically, you simulate the creation and deletion by playing with :Hide() and :Show() on static objects.

I guess there are better ways to do that though, but it works well if you don't mind having several hidden frames with no real use.

[Seerah]

You can set a frame reference to nil, but you cannot "delete" or "destroy" a frame. You'll need to set up a recycling system of sorts.

[MigGat]

Thanks you all! What I'm finally doing is create a frame that parents the list, and each time the list is refreshed hide it and create a new one.

I've never seen anything such inefficient... but it works :P

[Akryn]

Originally Posted by MigGat Thanks you all! What I'm finally doing is create a frame that parents the list, and each time the list is refreshed hide it and create a new one. I've never seen anything such inefficient... but it works :P

Doing it that way is not inefficient to the point that it will break things; but it would be better to keep the old ones and use them again instead of creating a new one each time.

[Seerah]

Originally Posted by Akryn but it would be better to keep the old ones and use them again instead of creating a new one each time.

This ^^. Hence the term "recycling" in my post above. This is also what Layrajha was implying.