Am Sonntag, den 08.02.2009, 21:04 +0100 schrieb Murray Cumming:
> On Sun, 2009-02-08 at 18:47 +0100, Mathias Hasselmann wrote:
> > Am Sonntag, den 08.02.2009, 18:36 +0100 schrieb Murray Cumming:
> > > On Sun, 2009-02-08 at 14:51 +0100, Sven Herzberg wrote:
> > > > AFAIR, you can flip it of you create a GtkBox/GtkScale, but not if you
> > > > create a Gtk[HV]{Box,Scale}... Mitch?
> > >
> > > Ah. Were those base classes (GtkBox, etc) instantiable before?
> > >
> > > If the base classes can now already do everything then shouldn't the V/H
> > > classes be deprecated already?
>
> A deprecation doesn't force people to change anything. It's not (yet) a
> removal of the API, though I guess that is planned for the future. It is
> a useful hint and it explains the apparent duplication.
Still you have to react on deprecations better soon than later, if you
want to avoid drowning some day.
> > Well, actually those V/H classes even serve a purpose: When using them
> > in a derived widget you can be sure, that nobody will be that evil to
> > suddenly change the orientation of your derived widget.
>
> Apparently that's not true though.
Oh, from reading this thread I thought this would be the case, but
apparently it is not. Seems you really can change the orientation of
some Gtk[HV]Box now. Shocking.
Maybe GtkBox and friends should get an internal flag for locking that
property? Whilst changing the orientation of widgets can be useful under
certain circumstances, there are others where you don't want to permit
this. Well, but maybe I think too restrictive right now, as you can do
nonsense to derived widgets already. Thinking about evil actions like
calling gtk_container_remove() on some essential child.
Ciao,
Mathias
--
Mathias Hasselmann <mathias.hasselm...@gmx.de>
Personal Blog: http://taschenorakel.de/mathias/
Openismus GmbH: http://www.openismus.com/
_______________________________________________
gtk-devel-list mailing list
gtk-devel-list@gnome.org
http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gtk-devel-list
