Send Gtkmm-forge mailing list submissions to
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/gtkmm-forge
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
You can reach the person managing the list at
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than "Re: Contents of Gtkmm-forge digest..."
gtkmm-forge is the mailing list that receives gtkmm bug reports from bugzilla.
A daily digest is sent to gtkmm-main, to encourage people to help fixing the
bugs. Do not try to unsubscribe gtkmm-forge from gtkmm-list.
Today's Topics:
1. [Bug 520778] [PATCH] GNode wrapper implementation
(glibmm (bugzilla.gnome.org))
2. [Bug 520778] [PATCH] GNode wrapper implementation
(glibmm (bugzilla.gnome.org))
3. [Bug 520778] [PATCH] GNode wrapper implementation
(glibmm (bugzilla.gnome.org))
4. [Bug 520778] [PATCH] GNode wrapper implementation
(glibmm (bugzilla.gnome.org))
5. [Bug 520778] [PATCH] GNode wrapper implementation
(glibmm (bugzilla.gnome.org))
6. [Bug 520778] [PATCH] GNode wrapper implementation
(glibmm (bugzilla.gnome.org))
7. [Bug 520778] [PATCH] GNode wrapper implementation
(glibmm (bugzilla.gnome.org))
8. [Bug 520778] [PATCH] GNode wrapper implementation
(glibmm (bugzilla.gnome.org))
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Message: 1
Date: Wed, 23 Jul 2008 14:45:49 +0000 (UTC)
From: "glibmm (bugzilla.gnome.org)"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: [gtkmm bugzilla] [Bug 520778] [PATCH] GNode wrapper
implementation
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
If you have any questions why you received this email, please see the text at
the end of this email. Replies to this email are NOT read, please see the text
at the end of this email. You can add comments to this bug at:
http://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=520778
glibmm | general | Ver: 2.15.x
------- Comment #16 from Szilard Pfeiffer 2008-07-23 14:45 UTC -------
(In reply to comment #14)
> (In reply to comment #13)
> > I would like to suggest some changes in the implementation of the wrapper
> > (comment 12). I can see the following benefits:
> >
> > 1; Glib::Node
>
> You mean Glib::Tree, I guess.
Yes, you are right, otherwise it would be lovely not to name the wrapper of
GNode to Glib::Tree especially because there is balanced tree implementatation
in Glib with a structure name GTree.
>
> > class would be closer to the original GNode structure, so it
> > would be simpler
> > 2; Foreach or traverse slots should use the tree node instead of the node's
> > data only
>
> What would be the advantage of this?
In case of the original version (GNode) a GNode * is passed to the callback
function, which makes possible to examine the location of the given node in the
complete tree (e.g.: depth, index). In case of an own Gtk::TreeModel
implementation it is necessary.
>
> > 3; Data would be compared by the operator == of class T instead of pointer
> > comparison in case of find functions
>
> The patch seems to have lots of unrelated changes, which makes it difficult to
> review.
>
--
See http://bugzilla.gnome.org/page.cgi?id=email.html for more info about why
you received
this email, why you can't respond via email, how to stop receiving
emails (or reduce the number you receive), and how to contact someone
if you are having problems with the system.
You can add comments to this bug at
http://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=520778.
------------------------------
Message: 2
Date: Wed, 23 Jul 2008 14:56:07 +0000 (UTC)
From: "glibmm (bugzilla.gnome.org)"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: [gtkmm bugzilla] [Bug 520778] [PATCH] GNode wrapper
implementation
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
If you have any questions why you received this email, please see the text at
the end of this email. Replies to this email are NOT read, please see the text
at the end of this email. You can add comments to this bug at:
http://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=520778
glibmm | general | Ver: 2.15.x
------- Comment #17 from Szilard Pfeiffer 2008-07-23 14:56 UTC -------
(In reply to comment #15)
> (In reply to comment #13)
> > 1; Glib::Node class would be closer to the original GNode structure, so it
> > would be simpler
>
> Are you suggesting renaming Tree to Node?
Yes. Sure. (comment 16)
>
> > 3; Data would be compared by the operator == of class T instead of pointer
> > comparison in case of find functions
>
> Data is already compared using the == operator.
>
You are right. It is mistake of mine, but with the suggested modifications it
is unnecessary to make a copy from the data and delete it in the destructor.
explicit Tree(T& data)
{
T* tmp = new T();
*tmp = data;
...
Additionally in case of this kind of implementation the class T must have a
constructor with no parameters and you cannot use the Glib::Tree with reference
types of data. For example:
Glib::Tree<std::string &>
--
See http://bugzilla.gnome.org/page.cgi?id=email.html for more info about why
you received
this email, why you can't respond via email, how to stop receiving
emails (or reduce the number you receive), and how to contact someone
if you are having problems with the system.
You can add comments to this bug at
http://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=520778.
------------------------------
Message: 3
Date: Wed, 23 Jul 2008 16:33:11 +0000 (UTC)
From: "glibmm (bugzilla.gnome.org)"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: [gtkmm bugzilla] [Bug 520778] [PATCH] GNode wrapper
implementation
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
If you have any questions why you received this email, please see the text at
the end of this email. Replies to this email are NOT read, please see the text
at the end of this email. You can add comments to this bug at:
http://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=520778
glibmm | general | Ver: 2.15.x
------- Comment #18 from Murray Cumming 2008-07-23 16:33 UTC -------
> it would be lovely not to name the wrapper of
> GNode to Glib::Tree especially because there is balanced tree implementatation
> in Glib with a structure name GTree.
Ah. Well spotted. How about using Glib::NodeTree instead, though let's keep
that out of any patches for now, to keep things simple. I really don't like the
Glib::Node (or GNode) name. It's too obscure.
> > > 2; Foreach or traverse slots should use the tree node instead of the
> > > node's
> > > data only
> >
> > What would be the advantage of this?
>
> In case of the original version (GNode) a GNode * is passed to the callback
> function, which makes possible to examine the location of the given node in
> the
> complete tree (e.g.: depth, index). In case of an own Gtk::TreeModel
> implementation it is necessary.
Ah. Could you show this in one of the examples, please.
> > The patch seems to have lots of unrelated changes, which makes it difficult
> > to review.
--
See http://bugzilla.gnome.org/page.cgi?id=email.html for more info about why
you received
this email, why you can't respond via email, how to stop receiving
emails (or reduce the number you receive), and how to contact someone
if you are having problems with the system.
You can add comments to this bug at
http://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=520778.
------------------------------
Message: 4
Date: Thu, 24 Jul 2008 13:48:32 +0000 (UTC)
From: "glibmm (bugzilla.gnome.org)"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: [gtkmm bugzilla] [Bug 520778] [PATCH] GNode wrapper
implementation
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
If you have any questions why you received this email, please see the text at
the end of this email. Replies to this email are NOT read, please see the text
at the end of this email. You can add comments to this bug at:
http://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=520778
glibmm | general | Ver: 2.15.x
------- Comment #19 from Szilard Pfeiffer 2008-07-24 13:48 UTC -------
Created an attachment (id=115172)
--> (http://bugzilla.gnome.org/attachment.cgi?id=115172&action=view)
example to comment 18
--
See http://bugzilla.gnome.org/page.cgi?id=email.html for more info about why
you received
this email, why you can't respond via email, how to stop receiving
emails (or reduce the number you receive), and how to contact someone
if you are having problems with the system.
You can add comments to this bug at
http://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=520778.
------------------------------
Message: 5
Date: Thu, 24 Jul 2008 13:52:42 +0000 (UTC)
From: "glibmm (bugzilla.gnome.org)"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: [gtkmm bugzilla] [Bug 520778] [PATCH] GNode wrapper
implementation
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
If you have any questions why you received this email, please see the text at
the end of this email. Replies to this email are NOT read, please see the text
at the end of this email. You can add comments to this bug at:
http://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=520778
glibmm | general | Ver: 2.15.x
------- Comment #20 from Szilard Pfeiffer 2008-07-24 13:52 UTC -------
(In reply to comment #18)
> > it would be lovely not to name the wrapper of
> > GNode to Glib::Tree especially because there is balanced tree
> > implementatation
> > in Glib with a structure name GTree.
>
> Ah. Well spotted. How about using Glib::NodeTree instead, though let's keep
> that out of any patches for now, to keep things simple. I really don't like
> the
> Glib::Node (or GNode) name. It's too obscure.
I work with GLib and Glibmm in parallel, so if the name of the wrapper and the
original differ it disturbs me, but it is only my humble opinion. It is your
choice, but if I have enough time I will write a wrapper to GTree, so I suggest
the consideration of the name.
>
> > > > 2; Foreach or traverse slots should use the tree node instead of the
> > > > node's
> > > > data only
> > >
> > > What would be the advantage of this?
> >
> > In case of the original version (GNode) a GNode * is passed to the callback
> > function, which makes possible to examine the location of the given node in
> > the
> > complete tree (e.g.: depth, index). In case of an own Gtk::TreeModel
> > implementation it is necessary.
>
> Ah. Could you show this in one of the examples, please.
>
I have given you an exemple (attachment 115172). It is not the final version,
but I hope it shows you my goal.
>
> > > The patch seems to have lots of unrelated changes, which makes it
> > > difficult to review.
>
--
See http://bugzilla.gnome.org/page.cgi?id=email.html for more info about why
you received
this email, why you can't respond via email, how to stop receiving
emails (or reduce the number you receive), and how to contact someone
if you are having problems with the system.
You can add comments to this bug at
http://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=520778.
------------------------------
Message: 6
Date: Thu, 24 Jul 2008 21:50:29 +0000 (UTC)
From: "glibmm (bugzilla.gnome.org)"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: [gtkmm bugzilla] [Bug 520778] [PATCH] GNode wrapper
implementation
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
If you have any questions why you received this email, please see the text at
the end of this email. Replies to this email are NOT read, please see the text
at the end of this email. You can add comments to this bug at:
http://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=520778
glibmm | general | Ver: 2.15.x
Szilard Pfeiffer changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Attachment #115172|tmp |example.cc
filename| |
--
See http://bugzilla.gnome.org/page.cgi?id=email.html for more info about why
you received
this email, why you can't respond via email, how to stop receiving
emails (or reduce the number you receive), and how to contact someone
if you are having problems with the system.
You can add comments to this bug at
http://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=520778.
------------------------------
Message: 7
Date: Thu, 24 Jul 2008 21:54:12 +0000 (UTC)
From: "glibmm (bugzilla.gnome.org)"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: [gtkmm bugzilla] [Bug 520778] [PATCH] GNode wrapper
implementation
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
If you have any questions why you received this email, please see the text at
the end of this email. Replies to this email are NOT read, please see the text
at the end of this email. You can add comments to this bug at:
http://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=520778
glibmm | general | Ver: 2.15.x
Szilard Pfeiffer changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Attachment #115172|application/octet-stream |text/x-c++src
mime type| |
--
See http://bugzilla.gnome.org/page.cgi?id=email.html for more info about why
you received
this email, why you can't respond via email, how to stop receiving
emails (or reduce the number you receive), and how to contact someone
if you are having problems with the system.
You can add comments to this bug at
http://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=520778.
------------------------------
Message: 8
Date: Fri, 25 Jul 2008 12:59:34 +0000 (UTC)
From: "glibmm (bugzilla.gnome.org)"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: [gtkmm bugzilla] [Bug 520778] [PATCH] GNode wrapper
implementation
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
If you have any questions why you received this email, please see the text at
the end of this email. Replies to this email are NOT read, please see the text
at the end of this email. You can add comments to this bug at:
http://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=520778
glibmm | general | Ver: 2.15.x
------- Comment #21 from Murray Cumming 2008-07-25 12:59 UTC -------
> I work with GLib and Glibmm in parallel, so if the name of the wrapper and the
> original differ it disturbs me, but it is only my humble opinion. It is your
> choice, but if I have enough time I will write a wrapper to GTree, so I
> suggest
> the consideration of the name.
I still don't like the GNode name.
And we still need a patch without the unrelated changes. Time is running out,
I'm afraid. GNOME API freeze is July 28th.
> > > In case of the original version (GNode) a GNode * is passed to the
> > > callback
> > > function, which makes possible to examine the location of the given node
> > > in the
> > > complete tree (e.g.: depth, index). In case of an own Gtk::TreeModel
> > > implementation it is necessary.
> >
> > Ah. Could you show this in one of the examples, please.
> >
>
> I have given you an exemple (attachment 115172 [edit]). It is not the final
> version,
> but I hope it shows you my goal.
This seems to be a custom Gtk::TreeModel. I guess you mean to show use of
methods like is_leaf(), but please try to create a simpler example or test that
we can put in glibmm itself.
--
See http://bugzilla.gnome.org/page.cgi?id=email.html for more info about why
you received
this email, why you can't respond via email, how to stop receiving
emails (or reduce the number you receive), and how to contact someone
if you are having problems with the system.
You can add comments to this bug at
http://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=520778.
------------------------------
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
This SF.Net email is sponsored by the Moblin Your Move Developer's challenge
Build the coolest Linux based applications with Moblin SDK & win great prizes
Grand prize is a trip for two to an Open Source event anywhere in the world
http://moblin-contest.org/redirect.php?banner_id=100&url=/
------------------------------
_______________________________________________
Gtkmm-forge mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/gtkmm-forge
End of Gtkmm-forge Digest, Vol 26, Issue 8
******************************************
_______________________________________________
gtkmm-list mailing list
[email protected]
http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gtkmm-list
