On Tue, Apr 01, 2003 at 06:07:29PM +0200, Herr Maik HERTHA wrote: > >However, in your case I honestly don't think this complication is at all > >justified. If all you want to do is pop up a dialog window on > >double-click, why don't you just check double-click, select the row your > >event object is positioned over, and show the dialog? Why do you need to > >use two callbacks chained? It's too weird for me. > > > > > It is my approach of event-driven applications. There is only one > responsible callback to show the dialog.
See, I don't understand what you mean by this. Why can't you have a method called show_dialog() which is called by N different callbacks? One of them could be a double-click on the row, another could be a menuitem you select, etc. > If you only select the row and use the button it is clear. But if I > define a "short-cut-action" for the user this > dialog should be raised by the same signal. So I transform this event in > the equal app-signal "button-was-clicked". Just make both methods call self.show_dialog(). > On a MSWindows box you send a message. On Unix I use this > "event-signal-transformation". In Python you can `send a message' by calling a method. You can also define your own signals in PyGTK2 and emit them. This makes sense when you won't have a reference to the method you want to call at callback time (and ends up allowing you to avoid storing state a number of times). Take care, -- Christian Reis, Senior Engineer, Async Open Source, Brazil. http://async.com.br/~kiko/ | [+55 16] 261 2331 | NMFL _______________________________________________ pygtk mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.daa.com.au/mailman/listinfo/pygtk Read the PyGTK FAQ: http://www.async.com.br/faq/pygtk/
