The new GtkOrientable's documentation
http://library.gnome.org/devel/gtk/unstable/gtk-Orientable.html#gtk-Orientable.description
says:
Historically, such widgets have been realized as subclasses of a common
base class (e.g GtkBox/GtkHBox/GtkVBox and
GtkScale/GtkHScale/GtkVScale). GtkOrientable is
Hi!
On Sun, 08 Feb 2009 14:51:10 +0100
Sven Herzberg herzi...@gnome-de.org wrote:
AFAIR, you can flip it of you create a GtkBox/GtkScale, but not if you
create a Gtk[HV]{Box,Scale}... Mitch?
Gtk[HV]Box sets only the property in init. So it should be possible to change
the orientation.
In
Am Sun, 08 Feb 2009 13:07:34 +0100
schrieb Murray Cumming murr...@murrayc.com:
The new GtkOrientable's documentation
http://library.gnome.org/devel/gtk/unstable/gtk-Orientable.html#gtk-Orientable.description
says:
Historically, such widgets have been realized as subclasses of a
common base
On Sun, 2009-02-08 at 14:51 +0100, Sven Herzberg wrote:
AFAIR, you can flip it of you create a GtkBox/GtkScale, but not if you
create a Gtk[HV]{Box,Scale}... Mitch?
Ah. Were those base classes (GtkBox, etc) instantiable before?
If the base classes can now already do everything then shouldn't
Christian Dywan a écrit :
This is how the current state is to my awareness:
It is meant to work so that subclasses such a GtkHFoo and GtkVFoo
behave the same as they used to, and can't flip. However if you use the
originally abstract base class 'orientation' works as expected, at
Am Sonntag, den 08.02.2009, 18:36 +0100 schrieb Murray Cumming:
On Sun, 2009-02-08 at 14:51 +0100, Sven Herzberg wrote:
AFAIR, you can flip it of you create a GtkBox/GtkScale, but not if you
create a Gtk[HV]{Box,Scale}... Mitch?
Ah. Were those base classes (GtkBox, etc) instantiable
On Sun, 2009-02-08 at 18:47 +0100, Mathias Hasselmann wrote:
Am Sonntag, den 08.02.2009, 18:36 +0100 schrieb Murray Cumming:
On Sun, 2009-02-08 at 14:51 +0100, Sven Herzberg wrote:
AFAIR, you can flip it of you create a GtkBox/GtkScale, but not if you
create a Gtk[HV]{Box,Scale}... Mitch?
Am Sonntag, den 08.02.2009, 21:04 +0100 schrieb Murray Cumming:
On Sun, 2009-02-08 at 18:47 +0100, Mathias Hasselmann wrote:
Am Sonntag, den 08.02.2009, 18:36 +0100 schrieb Murray Cumming:
On Sun, 2009-02-08 at 14:51 +0100, Sven Herzberg wrote:
AFAIR, you can flip it of you create a
On Sun, 2009-02-08 at 21:36 +0100, Mathias Hasselmann wrote:
Am Sonntag, den 08.02.2009, 21:04 +0100 schrieb Murray Cumming:
On Sun, 2009-02-08 at 18:47 +0100, Mathias Hasselmann wrote:
Am Sonntag, den 08.02.2009, 18:36 +0100 schrieb Murray Cumming:
On Sun, 2009-02-08 at 14:51 +0100,
Am Sonntag, den 08.02.2009, 21:57 +0100 schrieb Murray Cumming:
On Sun, 2009-02-08 at 21:36 +0100, Mathias Hasselmann wrote:
Am Sonntag, den 08.02.2009, 21:04 +0100 schrieb Murray Cumming:
On Sun, 2009-02-08 at 18:47 +0100, Mathias Hasselmann wrote:
Am Sonntag, den 08.02.2009, 18:36
[...]
If the base classes can now already do everything then shouldn't the
V/H
classes be deprecated already?
Gtk[VH]Foo deprecation++ from me, yes it should be deprecated if it doesnt
serve a purpose - hardcoding the orientation IMO does not serve a
purpose at all.
Somebody made
On Sun, Feb 8, 2009 at 7:07 AM, Murray Cumming murr...@murrayc.com wrote:
So can they actully be flipped at runtime now? The documentation seems
to suggest that they can't if they still use the old common base
classes.
The intention is to eventually make GtkScale and friends
instantiatable.
12 matches
Mail list logo
