On Wed, 2008-02-27 at 15:28 +0000, Matthew Allum wrote: > On Wed, 2008-02-27 at 16:06 +0100, Murray Cumming wrote: > > On Wed, 2008-02-27 at 13:36 +0000, Matthew Allum wrote: > > > Hi; > > > > > > On Wed, 2008-02-27 at 14:25 +0100, Murray Cumming wrote: > > > > > > > > Ah. Now I feel less confused. > > > > > > > > This ID-to-color stuff doesn't need to be done by the pick() > > > > implementation right? Whatever color pick() uses to paint(), everything > > > > will actually be painted in this special color? > > > > > > > > > > Right the color to use is passed in the pick method. Also check the > > > source of clutter_actor_paint(). > > > > Does that mean that these pick() implementations are wrong, because they > > call the paint() function, which presumably uses the wrong colors, and > > sometimes _only_ call the paint() function: > > > > No, look at the source of clutter_actor_paint () it knows the current > paint mode...
When, for instance tidy_notebook_pick() just calls tidy_notebook_paint() for self, that would not involve clutter_actor_paint() for self. But I guess this is OK for containers who just tell their child actors to paint, without doing any additional painting, because, as you say, clutter_actor_paint(child) calls clutter_actor_pick(child) if in pick mode. I suspect that it would indeed be wrong for a pick implementation to just call paint() if paint() actually did some painting of its own. -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] www.murrayc.com www.openismus.com > -- To unsubscribe send a mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
