On Tue, Mar 11, 2008 at 04:49:32PM +0100, Jesús Guerrero wrote: > On Tue, 11 Mar 2008 16:10:42 +0100 > Dominik Vogt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > MAX_VERTICAL_SPACING and MIN_VERTICAL_SPACING are not defined in > > > the patch. Anyway, MIN_VERTICAL_SPACING should be just 0 and > > > MAX_VERTICAL_SPACING the same value that is used for > > > MAX_MENU_BORDER_WIDTH. > > > > Ah, these values are already defined. It's better to use a new > > constant MAX_MENU_MARGIN (in libs/defaults.h). > > > Yes. I set it to 50, same value that MAX_MENU_BORDER_WIDTH as you > suggested. > > > @Victor: I wanted to say that it might make sense to have a > > style similar to ItemFormat for the vertical layout too. > > I would probably be able to implement this that way if you really think > it's better. The obvious benefits are:
Well, as Victor said it's hard to come up with an intuitive syntax. A menu is built from multiple items - it's easy to define a vertical itemformat with paddingn and alignment and everything, but the top and bottom margins still wouldn't fit in. > 1.- consistency > 2.- leave the doors open to implement options to align the text > vertically (I don't know how much could it take me to > implement that, maybe it's trivial, I'll have to look). I'm not sure that would be good for anything. > If you prefer it that way, let me know and I'll try to do my best. No, I think the approch you took is fine. > Thanks so much for all the input, it's much appreciated. Good :-) Ciao Dominik ^_^ ^_^ -- Dominik Vogt
