On Sat, 2005-06-25 at 12:54 +0200, Lukas Kolbe wrote:
> On Tue, 07 Jun 2005 13:08:34 +0200, martin wehner wrote:
>
> > So, back it out? It'd be ok with me - While I see the potential danger of
> > it
> > being misleading, after seeing it in action I agree that it doesn't look
> > too
> > hot. The "No Subfolders" string is a bit too wide for the tree and I guess
> > it could get really wide in some translations: "(Keine Unterverzeichnisse)"
> > in German for example. So most of the time the label will get cropped
> > anyway.
> >
>
> So, what about simply _not_ providing a mark to open the subfolders when
> there _are_ no subfolders? I mean, would this be so hard/inefficient?
> I personally find it just not nice to be able to unfold a folder in the
> treeview, just to see that it has no subfolders.
Yes, this is hard/inefficient. It needs Gtk+ changes to be possible.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Alexander Larsson Red Hat, Inc
[EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
He's a bookish soccer-playing waffle chef who must take medication to keep him
sane. She's a vivacious kleptomaniac hooker from a family of eight older
brothers. They fight crime!
--
nautilus-list mailing list
[email protected]
http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/nautilus-list
