On Wed, 2006-07-19 at 19:53 +0100, Duncan Coutts wrote: > Hi Murray, > > (cc'ing to the language bindings list as it's relevant to other > bindings) > > So, some signals are "action" signals. Of these many are ones that > applications do not need to connect to because they're used only for key > bindings. > > I believe that originally gtkmm did not bind any of these. I understand > that you now bind some of them, eg: > http://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=304103 > > Owen suggested I ask you if you have a list of the useful ones that you > decided to bind.
I think we bind almost none of them. And I've been trying to get an answer out the Gtk+ developers about which ones really should be bound. http://mail.gnome.org/archives/gtk-devel-list/2006-April/msg00160.html > I was having the problem that I bound all of them and then got the users > thoroughly confused since many of these signals did not do what the > users expected them to do. Yes, you can greatly improve a binding by not wrapping these signals. > For example connecting to the > GtkTextView::insert-at-cursor signal appears to do nothing (it never got > called). So I was hoping I could just not bind any of these action > signals and spare my users some confusion. However I've been advised > that there are some useful ones. -- Murray Cumming [EMAIL PROTECTED] www.murrayc.com www.openismus.com _______________________________________________ language-bindings mailing list [email protected] http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/language-bindings
