On Tue, Apr 3, 2012 at 11:56 AM, Tom Hacohen <[email protected]> wrote: > On 03/04/12 16:09, Carsten Haitzler (The Rasterman) wrote: >> >> its not random. its very simple and logical. what you want is nastier and >> more >> complex. >> > > Thanks for your reply, makes sense. So why isn't it the default for evas box > and we implement it on our own in elm box?
It was too specific, and as far as I remember nobody had time or motivation to investigate. A quick look at changing elm_box (5min) feels like different size hints interpretation. Also, evas box is updating size_hint_min differently. If there is an object without weight (==0, no-expand) then its current size is accounted into box minimum size (which makes sense to me). It also accounts padding of box and elements. None of evas or elm code seems bad or unreadable, but they do differ in behavior. One would need to check both code and see cases where they are correct and incorrect. However even this may be problematic, as if elm_box (currently in use) is incorrect in some aspect, changing it will require changing applications... which may not be doable, then we end with useless work? -- Gustavo Sverzut Barbieri http://profusion.mobi embedded systems -------------------------------------- MSN: [email protected] Skype: gsbarbieri Mobile: +55 (19) 9225-2202 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Better than sec? Nothing is better than sec when it comes to monitoring Big Data applications. Try Boundary one-second resolution app monitoring today. Free. http://p.sf.net/sfu/Boundary-dev2dev _______________________________________________ enlightenment-devel mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/enlightenment-devel
