On 07/05/2007 05:26 PM, Andy Ross wrote:
> But, all that being said: yes, you found a bug. The
> spans-are-too-wide problem* is caused by a sign bug when calculating
> the "extra" amount to distribute between spanned cells. Fixed in CVS.
Thank you for fixing the bug.
-
John Denker wrote:
> 4) I did not snipe. I did not sneer. I reported the facts as I
> observed them. If observations conflict with your expectations,
> what should I do?
John, please. You asked for a new feature that already exists, and
when corrected immediately reported that it doesn't work
On 07/05/2007 04:48 PM, Andy Ross wrote:
> John Denker wrote:
>> Yes, I tried it. It looks terrible.
>>
>> It still appears to be miscalculating by a factor of 3 the required column
>> width.
>
> A factor of 3? Dunno, it looks fine to me, and I can verify that it
> fixes your problem with shrink
John Denker wrote:
> Yes, I tried it. It looks terrible.
>
> It still appears to be miscalculating by a factor of 3 the required column
> width.
A factor of 3? Dunno, it looks fine to me, and I can verify that it
fixes your problem with shrinking columns. Whether you choose to
believe me or not
On 07/05/2007 03:40 PM, Andy Ross wrote:
> Putting one word in each column only happens looks better because of
> the details of your layout and the length of your strings.
Not true.
> Let the
> layout manager pick the size, that's what it's there for. Just remove
> the width and height lines
John Denker wrote:
> Andy Ross wrote:
> > Here's the problem. You're giving your dialog a fixed size, then
> > asking it to display something that doesn't quite fit.
>
> On my syste, with the default style, it should fit with room left
> over. The working version makes this particularly clear.
>
On 07/05/2007 03:40 PM, Andy Ross wrote:
> Here's the problem. You're giving your dialog a fixed size, then
> asking it to display something that doesn't quite fit.
On my syste, with the default style, it should fit with room left
over. The working version makes this particularly clear.
Why
John Denker wrote:
> Compare:
>http://www.av8n.com/fly/fgfs/weather.xmlworks
>http://www.av8n.com/fly/fgfs/weather.xmlbroken
>
> The difference between them is simple, and is attached below.
> The working file contains a working colspan. The broken
> file contains a second colspan that sig
On 07/05/2007 02:15 PM, Andy Ross wrote:
> Can you provide a case where it doesn't?
Compare:
http://www.av8n.com/fly/fgfs/weather.xmlworks
http://www.av8n.com/fly/fgfs/weather.xmlbroken
The difference between them is simple, and is attached below.
The working file contains a working colsp
John Denker wrote:
> Yes, the feature is documented, and there is some code to
> implement it (in GUI/layout.cxx) ... but it doesn't work
> reliably. Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't.
Can you provide a case where it doesn't? I can't promise or prove the
lack of bugs, only fix the ones th
On 07/05/2007 12:13 PM, Andy Ross wrote:
> Use the "rowspan" and "colspan" properties. Check Docs/README.layout
> for details.
Yes, the feature is documented, and there is some code to
implement it (in GUI/layout.cxx) ... but it doesn't work
reliably. Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't.
John Denker wrote:
> Here's the scenario: Suppose you have a nice table with rows and
> columns. Most of the rows have many narrow columns, but one or two
> rows have a lesser number of wider columns. The existing layout
> manager has no idea how to handle this AFAICT.
Use the "rowspan" and "co
Here's a creeping feature that would be useful, and
shouldn't be too hard to implement:
Here's the scenario: Suppose you have a nice table with
rows and columns. Most of the rows have many narrow
columns, but one or two rows have a lesser number of
wider columns. The existing layout manager has
13 matches
Mail list logo
