Ok well it sounds like either way would be good. - Shane On Fri, 2004-10-29 at 13:15, Tristan Van Berkom wrote: > On Fri, 29 Oct 2004 10:12:40 +1000, Shane Butler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Are there any cases yet where you would want to refuse the change but > > not have a set_function? > > I have one case where I am aware that it is needed, and it happens to have > a set_function. > > Now that I have to implement a way to deny the value, Is there a reason > to make it exclusive to properties that have set_functions ? > > Cheers, > -Tristan > > Note: > Today I had to implement a workaround defaulting the "pattern" > property of GtkLabel to "" instead of NULL, because it segfaults on NULL, > I'm not sure it applies (i.e. the glade property editor probably sets a null > charachter for an empty string as opposed to a NULL pointer) but I think > its an example that shows the possibility of needing to verify values that > don't have a set_function. > _______________________________________________ > Glade-devel maillist - [EMAIL PROTECTED] > http://lists.ximian.com/mailman/listinfo/glade-devel
_______________________________________________ Glade-devel maillist - [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.ximian.com/mailman/listinfo/glade-devel
