Damon Chaplin wrote:
On Thu, 2005-09-15 at 15:46 -0400, Tristan Van Berkom wrote:
as specially noted that there are in effect three types of child
widgets; normal, added as a result of a property value; added
as a composite child which is constantly present.
I think that if we're going to
On Sat, 2005-09-17 at 11:34 +0100, Damon Chaplin wrote:
I've had a look at all the composite children that Glade uses for GTK+
widgets. I think all of these could have been avoided if the widgets had
been written slightly differently:
GladeChildOKButton;
GladeChildCancelButton;
I've had a look at all the composite children that Glade uses for GTK+
widgets. I think all of these could have been avoided if the widgets had
been written slightly differently:
GladeChildOKButton;
GladeChildCancelButton;
GladeChildApplyButton;
GladeChildHelpButton;
Damon Chaplin wrote:
I've had a look at all the composite children that Glade uses for GTK+
widgets. I think all of these could have been avoided if the widgets had
been written slightly differently:
Hey,
thanks alot for compiling a list like that (I'll try to put it
to good use); I'm
On Thu, 2005-09-15 at 15:46 -0400, Tristan Van Berkom wrote:
as specially noted that there are in effect three types of child
widgets; normal, added as a result of a property value; added
as a composite child which is constantly present.
I think that if we're going to talk of ideal
Damon Chaplin wrote:
[...]
I think you guys should probably give up on the idea of handling
standard GTK+ widgets generically. There are so many special cases that
it is almost impossible.
I definitly agree that some compromises are needed, but I dont think that
just because special cases have
Gustavo J. A. M. Carneiro wrote:
[...]
avoid composite
children unless absolutely necessary (and even then only use simple
ones).
I don't agree it's fair to limit developers' options on code reuse
just for the sake of GUI builders. I'd rather pack an hbox into my
widget than duplicate its
On Fri, 2005-09-16 at 12:14 +0100, Gustavo J. A. M. Carneiro wrote:
On Fri, 2005-09-16 at 11:02 +0100, Damon Chaplin wrote:
avoid composite
children unless absolutely necessary (and even then only use simple
ones).
I don't agree it's fair to limit developers' options on code reuse
On Wed, 2005-09-14 at 23:27 -0400, Tristan Van Berkom wrote:
On a more practicle note; I was thinking that internal children of
composite widgets should be more introspectable; for the purpose
of GUI builders and loaders, if every child widget implicitly created
by its parent at least had a
Damon Chaplin wrote:
They can also be named with gtk_widget_set_composite_name(), though this
hasn't been used much in GTK+ itself.
And thats a damn shame :(
Right now I think the most evident practicle problems I'm seeing is:
- Composite children need to be marked as such in order to
Hi all,
I know that there was much talk of introspection back in febuary;
I didnt really follow this extensive thread: (Introspection API)
http://mail.gnome.org/archives/gtk-devel-list/2005-February/msg00088.html
but I wonder what decisions essentially were taken as a big picture;
11 matches
Mail list logo
