



Selectable itself does not imply any restrictions on whether that is singular or multiple, or the method used to perform the selection.





I agree on principle that "why use 30 lines of code when 3 will do"... the answer is "because a few extra bytes in the download is nothing compared to wasting development time trying to find out whether or not the expected functionality is actually there, when it either should be, or clearly be stated that it's not for that purpose."





I am grateful that this fantastic framework exists, and that it makes so many things much easier and quicker to develop, but in this instance I do agree that it is either missing expected functionality, or that its name is slightly misleading.





Personally I think that we are too far down the road to rename it now, so the functionality should be added, and if a note in the API Documentation is added to say that this is not the most efficient way of implementing a single select, then so be it - let the developer decide if it is appropriate (because they're already using it for other controls) or not (because they didn't expect a non-standard use of the term Selectable).





Selectable is the wrong name for this component. It's a brilliant piece of code, but it should really have been termed a multiselectable or a lassoselectable, to specifically identify that it has one intended purpose that differs from the normal interpretation of Selectable.