Especially since glade is pushing the use of libglade as THE
way to incorporate glade-produced layouts into applications,
libglade should be packaged so as to encourage just that. Not
make it hard for application developers to figure out how to use
it. In any case, this is more an issue
On Friday 16 February 2007 11:17 pm, Michael Torrie wrote:
On Fri, 2007-02-16 at 22:13 -0500, Gerald I. Evenden wrote:
I believe that much of the above and following issues are reasonably well
resolved but there are serious problems with the adequacy of some
sections (glib) but I will
Dear all,
I've learned how to use gtk by reading this documentation,
and other ressources found on the fly on the web; I've found
is extremely useful and well done, especially for a growing
project.
I am no C-guru, not even a computer scientist, and my
training is programming is twenty years
On Saturday 17 February 2007 12:16 pm, you wrote:
Gerald I. Evenden wrote on 02/17/2007 05:49 PM:
On line 72 in module main there is a reference to function
g_signal_connect. I cannot find any reference to this entry in the index
Have you tried typing g_signal_connect
On Saturday 17 February 2007 12:38 pm, Michael Torrie wrote:
...
My comments about information access is addressed on another email.
The example works just as it is supposed to. I get a pulsing progress
bar which, on my GTK theme, is a small blue rectangle that moves back
and forth
On Sat, 2007-02-17 at 13:18 -0500, Gerald I. Evenden wrote:
LOL
I give up! I throw in the towel.
Sorry to hear that. I believe that you could have found GTK programming
very rewarding. Note that I did not say libglade because I think you
had difficulties because you focused on libglade and
Geraldi,
I take notice of the following comment. I give up! I throw in the
towel. This is certainly your option, but I will tell you that your
experience with libglade is typical for persons who approach programming
the wrong way. Let me suggest an alternative that WILL yield different
and
Quoting Tristan Van Berkom [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
The question here, is why dont users go and consult the tarball,
if only to see if the maintainer included a Documentation directory
(you'll find that one usefull in the linux kernel tarball for
example), if only to read the README, if only to
On Fri, 2007-02-16 at 22:13 -0500, Gerald I. Evenden wrote:
I believe that much of the above and following issues are reasonably well
resolved but there are serious problems with the adequacy of some sections
(glib) but I will address these to a specific issue on a subsequent email
I'm not
On Wed, 2007-02-14 at 14:44 -0800, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[...]
The users manual should be provided with every copy of a packaged
distribution. The user's manual should provide sufficient instruction
on how to operate libglade. If a developer finds himself needing to
refer to the source to
On Thu, 2007-02-15 at 05:55 +, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[...]
You took it back to the point. I think metaphors don't help much here.
The question is whether usage examples belong to the documentation or
not. As we see, this question is debatable. Personally, I'd side clearly
with the yes
A the originator of this thread I will rephrase my problems and make a larger
scale complaint.
1. My original complaint was compile/linking glade output. Thanks to M.
Torrie this problem was nicely solved and I can compile/link several examples
from various sources.
2. A side thread
On Thu, 2007-02-15 at 13:46 -0500, Gerald I. Evenden wrote:
[...]
I would love to be proved wrong about libglade documentation so please flame
me if I am and point out my sins. Even though I am now able to compile/link
libglade code I find that I am now stymied by lack of documentation on
On Thu, 2007-02-15 at 13:46 -0500, Gerald I. Evenden wrote:
A the originator of this thread I will rephrase my problems and make a larger
scale complaint.
1. My original complaint was compile/linking glade output. Thanks to M.
Torrie this problem was nicely solved and I can compile/link
Gerald I. Evenden wrote:
2. A side thread suggested that in order to understand the usage of a system
like libglade one should study the source.
I think that's pretty standard practice where any open source
library/development system is concerned. Having full reference
documentation,
On Tue, Feb 13, 2007 at 04:32:19PM -0800, Rick Jones wrote:
I'm not really interested
in how library call foo is implemented, I just want to know how to call
it do get my work done.
So you want to know how to use it and you intentionally
avoid one of the most efficient ways to learn it.
So you want to know how to use it and you intentionally
avoid one of the most efficient ways to learn it. Well, if
it works for you...
What is so inefficient about taking an example (that already exists)
and including it in the HTML/online documentation that more people
read than source code
On Wed, 2007-02-14 at 12:56 -0300, Claudio Saavedra wrote:
If at least the guy complaining would have given more information about the
problems he had, we could have directed him in the right direction, which
would've been much more productive than this where do we put examples for the
lazy
On Wed, Feb 14, 2007 at 01:28:23PM -0800, Rick Jones wrote:
Well, I didn't go tearing-down the engine and transmission in my car,
but I still learned how to drive it :)
If your have no idea why the car does what it does when you
turn the steering wheel or change gear, I just hope you live
in
I just love this car analogy!
CARS
The technical service manual is available for those that need to service
the car. It doesn't come with the assembled car. Maybe it comes with
the car if you buy it in kit form. Your repair mechanic needs to refer
to it, but if the car's well-made, the user
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Thu, Feb 15, 2007 at 12:00:37AM +0100, David Nečas (Yeti) wrote:
On Wed, Feb 14, 2007 at 02:44:21PM -0800, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[...]
libglade developers do not produce any binary packages.
Their product does come with examples.
On Sun, 2007-02-11 at 16:06 -0700, Michael Torrie wrote:
On Sun, 2007-02-11 at 14:58 -0700, Michael Torrie wrote:
I've attached one that compiles thusly:
gcc -o gladetest gladetest.c `pkg-config --cflags --libs gtk+-2.0
libglade-2.0`
The attachment doesn't seem to have made it
On Tue, 2007-02-13 at 09:47 -0500, Tristan Van Berkom wrote:
The testlibglade program that comes with libglade is about 100
lines of code + some helpfull comments about using the library
and about how the library works.
I hope that this source file in the libglade tarball was easy
to find.
On Tue, 2007-02-13 at 10:28 -0700, Michael Torrie wrote:
On Tue, 2007-02-13 at 09:47 -0500, Tristan Van Berkom wrote:
The testlibglade program that comes with libglade is about 100
lines of code + some helpfull comments about using the library
and about how the library works.
I hope
On Tue, 2007-02-13 at 14:16 -0500, Tristan Van Berkom wrote:
PS: This is not a personal thing, countless hordes have come in
search of a libglade example without ever consulting the tarball,
its just getting a little frustrating by now - but what can we do
to improve the situation ?
I was
On Tue, 2007-02-13 at 12:53 -0700, Michael Torrie wrote:
[...]
One thing that might help here is to have a compiled executable that
demonstrates libglade be installed as part of the normal compilation
process. This would then be picked up by the packagers and installed as
part of the -devel
On Tue, 2007-02-13 at 14:03 -0700, Michael Torrie wrote:
On Tue, 2007-02-13 at 15:12 -0500, Tristan Van Berkom wrote:
Somehow I think that downloading the actual tarball from wherever the
website of a said software said to go download it from is much more
obvious a place then in a -devel
On Tue, Feb 13, 2007 at 02:03:29PM -0700, Michael Torrie wrote:
In any event, if a user wants to develop with
libglade, he'd need to install the rpms or debs or whatever. Most users
aren't going to be using the raw tarballs.
Install it and use it are two very different things.
Sure, one
28 matches
Mail list logo
