On Thu, Oct 28, 2010 at 3:03 AM, Tristan Van Berkom
wrote:
>>
>> Current state is that all size_request vfuncs in GTK+ except
>> for the one on GtkWidgetClass has been removed, "size-request"
>> signal and vfunc is to be considered deprecated but as Matthias
>> mentioned we cant use #ifdef depre
On Thu, 2010-10-28 at 15:47 +0900, Tristan Van Berkom wrote:
> On Wed, 2010-10-27 at 13:24 +0900, Tristan Van Berkom wrote:
> > On Tue, 2010-10-26 at 21:43 -0400, Matthias Clasen wrote:
> > > On Tue, Oct 26, 2010 at 8:26 PM, Matthias Clasen
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > Proposed plan:
> > > >
> > >
On Wed, 2010-10-27 at 13:24 +0900, Tristan Van Berkom wrote:
> On Tue, 2010-10-26 at 21:43 -0400, Matthias Clasen wrote:
> > On Tue, Oct 26, 2010 at 8:26 PM, Matthias Clasen
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Proposed plan:
> > >
> > > 1. nuke size-request in GTK+
> > > 2. deprecate size-request in 2.91.3 (we
On Tue, 2010-10-26 at 21:43 -0400, Matthias Clasen wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 26, 2010 at 8:26 PM, Matthias Clasen
> wrote:
>
> > Proposed plan:
> >
> > 1. nuke size-request in GTK+
> > 2. deprecate size-request in 2.91.3 (we can't use #ifdef deprecation
> > for vfuncs, but maybe we can arrange things
On Tue, Oct 26, 2010 at 8:26 PM, Matthias Clasen
wrote:
> Proposed plan:
>
> 1. nuke size-request in GTK+
> 2. deprecate size-request in 2.91.3 (we can't use #ifdef deprecation
> for vfuncs, but maybe we can arrange things so that having a non-NULL
> size_request vfunc will trigger a runtime warn
On Wed, Oct 13, 2010 at 11:13 AM, Tristan Van Berkom
wrote:
> On Sun, 2010-10-10 at 03:01 +0900, Tristan Van Berkom wrote:
>> On Sat, 2010-10-09 at 13:18 -0400, Matthias Clasen wrote:
>> > On Sat, Oct 9, 2010 at 2:56 AM, Tristan Van Berkom
>> [...]
>> > > And... please, please... if removing the e
On Sun, 2010-10-10 at 03:01 +0900, Tristan Van Berkom wrote:
> On Sat, 2010-10-09 at 13:18 -0400, Matthias Clasen wrote:
> > On Sat, Oct 9, 2010 at 2:56 AM, Tristan Van Berkom
> [...]
> > > And... please, please... if removing the expose completely
> > > is acceptable... can we then go ahead and re
On Sat, 2010-10-09 at 13:18 -0400, Matthias Clasen wrote:
> On Sat, Oct 9, 2010 at 2:56 AM, Tristan Van Berkom
[...]
> > And... please, please... if removing the expose completely
> > is acceptable... can we then go ahead and remove ->size_request()
> > as well ?
>
> That is a fair question, I'd s
On Sat, Oct 9, 2010 at 2:56 AM, Tristan Van Berkom
wrote:
> Hi all,
> So I'm spending some time trying to get Glade to at least build
> on 3.0...
>
> First thing, what is the recommended way of doing
> gdk_window_set_back_pixmap (from xpm data...) ?
>
> Sure... I'm seeing gdk_window_set_back
