On Mon, 07 Feb 2005 11:30:06 +0100 Sebastian Dransfeld <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> (Bbabbled: (B (B> Sebastian Dransfeld wrote: (B> > Carsten Haitzler (The Rasterman) wrote: (B> > (B> >> On Mon, 07 Feb 2005 10:26:34 +0100 Sebastian Dransfeld (B> >> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> (B> >> babbled: (B> >> (B> >> (B> >>> Hi! (B> >>> (B> >>> This patch fixes the computation of edje parts. Earlier the down (B> >>> right corner was at ((1.0, 1.0), (-1, -1)) and now it is at ((1.0, (B> >>> 1.0), (0, 0)) as it should be. E runs fine with the patch applied, (B> >>> but the theme is a bit screwed. (B> >>> (B> >>> What is the purpose of adding 1? Is it so that w = 0 and h = 0 (B> >>> shouldn't be returned? That should be done somewhere else. (B> >>> (B> >>> I also tried to fix the default theme for E, but I'm not sure (B> >>> everything is correct, and I didn't fix the ibar. Which still has to (B> >>> be ported to gadman anyhow. (B> >> (B> >> (B> >> (B> >> you should have asked first!@ :) i can't accept this because there are (B> >> good (B> >> reasons i have the system as it is. there are several kinds of layout and (B> >> alignment that are MUCH easier doing it as 1.0 1.0 being the (B> >> bottom-right PLUS (B> >> 1. remember we are not defining the width, but defining the (B> >> bottom-right PIXEL (B> >> so the relative co-ords work 100% as you'd expect 1.0 == the width, (B> >> but because (B> >> we define the bottom-right pixel we need to do -1 -1. if we don't (B> >> there are (B> >> several layout systems that just can't be done anymore - i had things (B> >> this way (B> >> for a bit thinking "lets make it easy" but i found the problems.... :) (B> > (B> > (B> > Hm. But if I have a widget sized 10x10, edje will calculate it as 9x9 in (B> > size. And that isn't right or? So first I cut on pixel away because I (B> > defined my lower right corner relative to (0, 0) and not (-1, -1), and (B> > one pixel is cut because of the wrong size. (B> > (B> > You might think it's brilliant, but it is a bit confusing for other. (B> > (B> > Sebastian (B> (B> Which is wrong. You're right, everything works fine if (-1, -1) is used. (B> But I thing this should be stated with bold in the edjebook :) (B (Byeah - i know it's a bit weird :) but there are reasons - and geometry handling (Binternally is consistent and easy. we eventually want to have gui tools that (Bjust do this all for you so how its done underneath shouldn't be a problem :) (B (B-- (B------------- Codito, ergo sum - "I code, therefore I am" -------------- (BThe Rasterman (Carsten Haitzler) [EMAIL PROTECTED] $BMg9%B?(B [EMAIL PROTECTED] (BTokyo, Japan ($BEl5~(B $BF|K\(B) (B (B (B------------------------------------------------------- (BThis SF.Net email is sponsored by: IntelliVIEW -- Interactive Reporting (BTool for open source databases. Create drag-&-drop reports. Save time (Bby over 75%! Publish reports on the web. Export to DOC, XLS, RTF, etc. (BDownload a FREE copy at http://www.intelliview.com/go/osdn_nl (B_______________________________________________ (Benlightenment-devel mailing list ([email protected] (Bhttps://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/enlightenment-devel
