On Tuesday 15 May 2007 10:37, Kristian Rietveld wrote:
It depends what you mean with remove the row from the model. If that
means unlinking the row from the model's data structures, then there's
not a nice way anymore to retrieve an iterator to access that row. And
if _get_iter() is still
On Wed, May 09, 2007 at 02:01:20PM +0200, Sven Neumann wrote:
Wouldn't it make more sense to introduce a new signal row-delete and
use that instead of changing the semantics of row-deleted? If that
would have been done in the first place, then you wouldn't have said
inconsistency now.
Yes, I
On Thu, 2007-05-10 at 17:04 +0200, Kristian Rietveld wrote:
There are no clear rules for this, actually. Most simple models don't
have a real use for this. The filter and sort models both use this
mechanism to keep track of which levels to cache and monitor. Models
which reference external
Hi,
In the past all GtkTreeModels used to emit the row-deleted signal *after* a
node had been fully deleted from the internal data structures. This means
that it is not possible to get an iter to that node any longer. When
fixing up the GtkTreeModelSort and GtkTreeModelFilter long ago, it
Hi,
On Wed, 2007-05-09 at 14:06 +0200, Kristian Rietveld wrote:
Currently this behavior is inconsistent in GTK+, as the GtkListStore and
GtkTreeStore still emit row-deleted *after* deleting a node. For the sake
of consistency I would like to modify both models to also emit row-deleted
