On Tue, 2005-03-29 at 15:30 +0800, James Henstridge wrote:
Is there any reason to hide destroy() though? If you hide it, you'll
need to provide some other way to destroy toplevel windows, among other
things.
I'd move it to GtkWidget I think.
I'd put this one under provide sane default
On Fri, 2005-25-03 at 01:06 -0500, Havoc Pennington wrote:
On Fri, 2005-03-25 at 00:45 -0500, Havoc Pennington wrote:
- put the main loop only in the GLib layer, no gtk_main visible
- hide color allocation, just always use the GdkRGB stuff
- fix some of the other examples of weird X
On Tue, 2005-03-29 at 14:41 +0900, Ryan McDougall wrote:
On Fri, 2005-25-03 at 01:06 -0500, Havoc Pennington wrote:
On Fri, 2005-03-25 at 00:45 -0500, Havoc Pennington wrote:
- put the main loop only in the GLib layer, no gtk_main visible
- hide color allocation, just always use the
Havoc Pennington wrote:
On Fri, 2005-03-25 at 00:45 -0500, Havoc Pennington wrote:
- put the main loop only in the GLib layer, no gtk_main visible
- hide color allocation, just always use the GdkRGB stuff
- fix some of the other examples of weird X features leaking through
-
Hi,
Back in the day when I was working on the Inti C++ bindings, one of the
objectives was to clean up the cruft from the GTK+ C API. Some examples
of cleanups one might do:
- put the main loop only in the GLib layer, no gtk_main visible
- hide color allocation, just always use the GdkRGB
On Fri, 2005-03-25 at 00:45 -0500, Havoc Pennington wrote:
- put the main loop only in the GLib layer, no gtk_main visible
- hide color allocation, just always use the GdkRGB stuff
- fix some of the other examples of weird X features leaking through
- gdk_drawable_get_size() replaced by
