On 19.4.2015 г. 16:43, Enrico Tröger wrote:
On 17/04/15 21:42, Dimitar Zhekov wrote:
Alright, I finally got it.
To whoever might be interested:
1. The default theme for gtk+ 2.24 under Windows has been changed [...]
2. The horizontal (only) notebook tabs backgrounds under "MS-Windows" is
unch
On 17/04/15 21:42, Dimitar Zhekov wrote:
> On 16.4.2015 г. 23:36, Colomban Wendling wrote:
>
>> I can't seem to really change the colors when using the "MS-Windows"
>> theme, but I guess it's kinda expected some things aren't really
>> overridable with a "native" theme that uses the Windows themin
On 16.4.2015 г. 23:36, Colomban Wendling wrote:
I can't seem to really change the colors when using the "MS-Windows"
theme, but I guess it's kinda expected some things aren't really
overridable with a "native" theme that uses the Windows theming API or
something.
But the vertical tabs still re
I don't mind some form of underline, highlight or something to
indicate the active tab, and as Thomas says, that future-proofs it if
one day we get slipt or multi windows.
It would be good if it had a pref so it could be turned off on those
platforms/themes that don't need it. Forcing something n
Am 16.04.2015 um 23:20 schrieb Colomban Wendling:
Is a pref necessary?
Yes.
In that case it's not the best solution and we should find an indication that
people don't want to outright disable.
The underline gets the job done but I'm not married to it. Can you suggest a
better alternative?
On 15-04-16 02:20 PM, Colomban Wendling wrote:
Le 16/04/2015 23:14, Thomas Martitz a écrit :
Am 16.04.2015 um 21:47 schrieb Enrico Tröger:
On 16/04/15 18:47, Dimitar Zhekov wrote:
On 16.4.2015 г. 12:37, Thomas Martitz wrote:
Am 15.04.2015 um 19:15 schrieb Dimitar Zhekov:
[…]
In my splitwind
Le 16/04/2015 23:14, Thomas Martitz a écrit :
> Am 16.04.2015 um 21:47 schrieb Enrico Tröger:
>> On 16/04/15 18:47, Dimitar Zhekov wrote:
>>> On 16.4.2015 г. 12:37, Thomas Martitz wrote:
Am 15.04.2015 um 19:15 schrieb Dimitar Zhekov:
> […]
In my splitwindow2 patches I underline the te
Am 16.04.2015 um 21:47 schrieb Enrico Tröger:
On 16/04/15 18:47, Dimitar Zhekov wrote:
On 16.4.2015 г. 12:37, Thomas Martitz wrote:
Am 15.04.2015 um 19:15 schrieb Dimitar Zhekov:
That's exactly what I'm talking about. The white horizontal line,
which normally gives nice outline [vertical_tabs]
Le 16/04/2015 19:15, Dimitar Zhekov a écrit :
> On 16.4.2015 г. 14:41, Colomban Wendling wrote:
>> Le 15/04/2015 19:15, Dimitar Zhekov a écrit :
>>> That's exactly what I'm talking about. The white horizontal line, which
>>> normally gives nice outline [vertical_tabs], but is almost lost [...]
>>>
On 16/04/15 21:51, Enrico Tröger wrote:
> On 15/04/15 19:15, Dimitar Zhekov wrote:
>> On 14.4.2015 г. 22:37, Enrico Tröger wrote:
>>> On 13/04/15 19:33, Dimitar Zhekov wrote:
In 2.24, the horizontal tabs under Win~1 have this "flat" or "modern" or
whatever look, and you can only dist
On 15/04/15 19:15, Dimitar Zhekov wrote:
> On 14.4.2015 г. 22:37, Enrico Tröger wrote:
>> On 13/04/15 19:33, Dimitar Zhekov wrote:
>>>
>>> In 2.24, the horizontal tabs under Win~1 have this "flat" or "modern" or
>>> whatever look, and you can only distinguish the current tab via a slight
>>> 3D eff
On 16/04/15 18:47, Dimitar Zhekov wrote:
> On 16.4.2015 г. 12:37, Thomas Martitz wrote:
>> Am 15.04.2015 um 19:15 schrieb Dimitar Zhekov:
>>> That's exactly what I'm talking about. The white horizontal line,
>>> which normally gives nice outline [vertical_tabs], but is almost [...]
>>> due to the w
On 16.4.2015 г. 14:41, Colomban Wendling wrote:
Le 15/04/2015 19:15, Dimitar Zhekov a écrit :
That's exactly what I'm talking about. The white horizontal line, which
normally gives nice outline [vertical_tabs], but is almost lost [...]
the white editor background, combined with the identical unc
On 16.4.2015 г. 12:37, Thomas Martitz wrote:
Am 15.04.2015 um 19:15 schrieb Dimitar Zhekov:
That's exactly what I'm talking about. The white horizontal line,
which normally gives nice outline [vertical_tabs], but is almost [...]
due to the white editor background, combined with the identical
unc
On 16.4.2015 г. 03:41, Matthew Brush wrote:
On 15-04-15 10:15 AM, Dimitar Zhekov wrote:
That's exactly what I'm talking about. The white horizontal line, which
normally gives nice outline [vertical_tabs], but is almost lost [...]
We could re-parent the Scintilla widget into a frame (or whiche
Le 15/04/2015 19:15, Dimitar Zhekov a écrit :
> On 14.4.2015 г. 22:37, Enrico Tröger wrote:
>> On 13/04/15 19:33, Dimitar Zhekov wrote:
>>>
>>> In 2.24, the horizontal tabs under Win~1 have this "flat" or "modern" or
>>> whatever look, and you can only distinguish the current tab via a slight
>>> 3
On Thu, Apr 16, 2015 at 2:41 AM, Matthew Brush wrote:
>
> We could re-parent the Scintilla widget into a frame (or whichever is the
> proper widget) and set its border shadow to "in" or "etched in", which
> would probably look more appropriate on Windows[0][1][2], and likely still
> look fine on
Am 15.04.2015 um 19:15 schrieb Dimitar Zhekov:
On 14.4.2015 г. 22:37, Enrico Tröger wrote:
On 13/04/15 19:33, Dimitar Zhekov wrote:
In 2.24, the horizontal tabs under Win~1 have this "flat" or
"modern" or
whatever look, and you can only distinguish the current tab via a
slight
3D effect. An
On 15 April 2015 at 05:37, Enrico Tröger wrote:
> On 13/04/15 19:33, Dimitar Zhekov wrote:
>> On 13.4.2015 г. 04:11, Matthew Brush wrote:
>>
While on configuring, the README file still lists gtk+ 2.16 as a minimum
requirement for Geany - but it's actually 2.18 with GtkInfoBar now,
r
On 15-04-15 10:15 AM, Dimitar Zhekov wrote:
On 14.4.2015 г. 22:37, Enrico Tröger wrote:
On 13/04/15 19:33, Dimitar Zhekov wrote:
In 2.24, the horizontal tabs under Win~1 have this "flat" or "modern" or
whatever look, and you can only distinguish the current tab via a slight
3D effect. And unli
On 14.4.2015 г. 22:37, Enrico Tröger wrote:
On 13/04/15 19:33, Dimitar Zhekov wrote:
In 2.24, the horizontal tabs under Win~1 have this "flat" or "modern" or
whatever look, and you can only distinguish the current tab via a slight
3D effect. And unlike 3.x, where you can easily set the active t
On 13/04/15 19:33, Dimitar Zhekov wrote:
> On 13.4.2015 г. 04:11, Matthew Brush wrote:
>
>>> While on configuring, the README file still lists gtk+ 2.16 as a minimum
>>> requirement for Geany - but it's actually 2.18 with GtkInfoBar now,
>>> right?
>>
>> I just merged PR #245[0], so 2.24 should be
On 14.4.2015 г. 01:56, Lex Trotman wrote:
On 14 April 2015 at 03:33, Dimitar Zhekov wrote:
On 13.4.2015 г. 04:11, Matthew Brush wrote:
Wow, that may be not a very good news for the Windows users.
Well, the GTK windows guys on the GTK list basically seem to agree
that the next good windows ve
On 14 April 2015 at 03:33, Dimitar Zhekov wrote:
> On 13.4.2015 г. 04:11, Matthew Brush wrote:
>
>>> While on configuring, the README file still lists gtk+ 2.16 as a minimum
>>> requirement for Geany - but it's actually 2.18 with GtkInfoBar now,
>>> right?
>>
>>
>> I just merged PR #245[0], so 2.2
Le 12/04/2015 19:20, Dimitar Zhekov a écrit :
> On 10.4.2015 г. 18:36, Colomban Wendling wrote:
>
>> waf: Fix the checks for openpty() on FreeBSD
>
> ACK. Please, be sure to use the same check for debugger, it probably
> needs it.
The same commits should already have altered both Scope and Debug
On 13.4.2015 г. 04:11, Matthew Brush wrote:
While on configuring, the README file still lists gtk+ 2.16 as a minimum
requirement for Geany - but it's actually 2.18 with GtkInfoBar now,
right?
I just merged PR #245[0], so 2.24 should be good version to use.
On 13.4.2015 г. 04:12, Lex Trotman
On 13 April 2015 at 09:40, Lex Trotman wrote:
> On 13 April 2015 at 03:20, Dimitar Zhekov wrote:
>> On 10.4.2015 г. 18:36, Colomban Wendling wrote:
>>
>>> waf: Fix the checks for openpty() on FreeBSD
>>
>>
>> ACK. Please, be sure to use the same check for debugger, it probably needs
>> it.
>>
>>
On 15-04-12 10:20 AM, Dimitar Zhekov wrote:
[snip]
While on configuring, the README file still lists gtk+ 2.16 as a minimum
requirement for Geany - but it's actually 2.18 with GtkInfoBar now,
right? I can cut an entire module (gtk216.[ch]) from Scope if 2.18 is
the minimum required version...
On 13 April 2015 at 03:20, Dimitar Zhekov wrote:
> On 10.4.2015 г. 18:36, Colomban Wendling wrote:
>
>> waf: Fix the checks for openpty() on FreeBSD
>
>
> ACK. Please, be sure to use the same check for debugger, it probably needs
> it.
>
> While on configuring, the README file still lists gtk+ 2.1
On 10.4.2015 г. 18:36, Colomban Wendling wrote:
waf: Fix the checks for openpty() on FreeBSD
ACK. Please, be sure to use the same check for debugger, it probably
needs it.
While on configuring, the README file still lists gtk+ 2.16 as a minimum
requirement for Geany - but it's actually 2.1
30 matches
Mail list logo
