On Sun, 29 Jan 2012 21:48:51 +0100, Murray Cumming wrote:
On Thu, 2012-01-19 at 12:53 +0100, Dieter Verfaillie wrote:
I maintain
http://www.optionexplicit.be/projects/gnome-windows/GTK+3/
which is built from ATK, Pango, GLib, GTK+, GObject-Introspection,
etc
master branches. For some modules
Hello,
I'am trying to use the gobject-introspection to add binding to one of
my C library. I use the g_boxed_type_register_static, to register
object and it works great.
But now I am facing a issue with struct without copy constructor.
so I tryed to put NULL for the copy method of the
On 01/31/2012 04:22 PM, Picca Frédéric-Emmanuel wrote:
so my question is 'simple' what is the recommanded way if I want to add
a struct without copy constructor.
You don't.
If you wish to do so, then you might have two situations:
- refcounted structures: then add a copy function which is
Le Tue, 31 Jan 2012 15:45:46 +0100,
Steve Frécinaux nudr...@gmail.com a écrit :
- refcounted structures: then add a copy function which is actually a
ref function, and a free function which is an unref function.
not my case
- statically allocated structures: then set the copy and free
Hey,
some idea that came up in theme-related irc chatter today: Considering
we have a GTK+ hackfest in Brno Feb 17-21, and a bunch of GNOME design
people are in town that weekend as well, we should arrange for an hour
or so of free-form discussion along the toolkit design boundary.
Possible
There is a ton of stuff in the multitouch branch, and I really want to
make progress on getting all this good stuff merged at the hackfest,
so I think we need to start reviewing the branch before we get
together. Since there's so much stuff in there, I'll try to split this
up in a series of mails,
On 01/31/2012 04:57 PM, Picca Frédéric-Emmanuel wrote:
In that case the copy method should return a value, what about NULL ?
You should rather return the object itself (same for the refcount case).
Glib doesn't have to know what you return is actually the same instance
as before.
If
Le Tue, 31 Jan 2012 16:58:37 +0100,
Steve Frécinaux nudr...@gmail.com a écrit :
You should rather return the object itself (same for the refcount case).
Glib doesn't have to know what you return is actually the same instance
as before.
I tryed with the object himself but, I got a double
API:
GtkWidget::captured-event signal
GTK_CAPTURED_EVENT_{HANDLED,STORE}
gtk_widget_release_captured_events
General idea: The ::captured-event signal is emitted top-down,
starting at the toplevel (somewhat different in the presence of grabs)
all the way down to the widget that received the
On 01/31/2012 06:06 PM, Picca Frédéric-Emmanuel wrote:
I tryed with the object himself but, I got a double free error, at the end.
the binding do not check that object are identical (save adress) and
try to free it two times. Is it a bug ?
This is because you have a free function which...
It seems like we've been avoiding talking about this particular issue
for a while, but I think it's time we got a bit more serious about it.
https://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=657385
This bug introduced a 'Rename to:' field on gtk_menu_popup_for_device(),
which of course, is an API
On Tue, 2012-01-31 at 14:40 -0500, Ryan Lortie wrote:
existed in Gtk 3.2 and was bound as such. Python applications[1]
Sorry:
[1] https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/923171 (Ubuntu software centre)
___
gtk-devel-list mailing list
This seems like a minor issue compared to GtkGrid 3.0 vs GtkGrid 3.2
incompatibilities. A could of attributes got swapped in-between those
two versions.
Morten
___
gtk-devel-list mailing list
gtk-devel-list@gnome.org
Matthias Clasen matthias.clasen at gmail.com writes:
General questions:
- How does that integrate with EventControllers?
This is more of a thing to think about than a question, but I think it's
interesting that this works well in a world where we have EventController
objects and run on top of
I'd say that the entire API stability of bindings is not a minor issue vs.
the stability of a new widget.
2012/1/31 Morten Welinder mort...@gnome.org
This seems like a minor issue compared to GtkGrid 3.0 vs GtkGrid 3.2
incompatibilities. A could of attributes got swapped in-between those
two
On Tue, Jan 31, 2012 at 2:40 PM, Ryan Lortie de...@desrt.ca wrote:
What makes this particular incident of note is that popup_for_device()
existed in Gtk 3.2 and was bound as such. Python applications[1]
started using it, and then, with this commit, it disappeared.
We need to figure out
On Tue, Jan 31, 2012 at 2:59 PM, Benjamin Otte o...@gnome.org wrote:
Matthias Clasen matthias.clasen at gmail.com writes:
Going into detail on your mail:
API:
GtkWidget::captured-event signal
GTK_CAPTURED_EVENT_{HANDLED,STORE}
gtk_widget_release_captured_events
- What events are
On Tue, Jan 31, 2012 at 4:15 PM, Ryan Lortie de...@desrt.ca wrote:
There may also be scope for helping us cope better on the introspection
side with things like renames: we could keep the old name in a
deprecated state, for example.
That seems like a very natural solution for this case,
API:
GtkWidget::press-and-hold
GTK_PRESS_AND_HOLD_{QUERY,TRIGGER,CANCEL}
GTK_STYLE_CLASS_PRESS_AND_HOLD style class
GtkSettings::gtk-press-and-hold-timeout setting
This feature has a long history going back to 2005 and Hildon [1][2].
The way it works is that ::press-and-hold is emitted upon
Ryan Lortie desrt at desrt.ca writes:
We need to figure out what our story is with respect to annotations.
'Rename to:' is an extreme example (since an entire function, as named,
disappears) but we can easily cause problems just as serious with
changes that look a lot more innocent (like
20 matches
Mail list logo
