Dearest ones,
Do you mind if I ask you off-topic? I am a complete newbie in XML
and I would like to know how do you deal with it in your applications
(those who write and read XML-formatted files)... I have googled about
the topic some times, read a lot about SAX, DOM, but I still have
Hi!!
I need help!
i plot a function using gtkbut now i want to insert a cursor,for move in the
graph.
How can i do it??
thanks a lot
___
gtk-app-devel-list mailing list
gtk-app-devel-list@gnome.org
Wow!! It made me think about the 99 Bottles Of Beer site -- it´s C but
it does not LOOK like C! I would not even TRY to do something like that,
but I found it very interesting! :)
___
Yahoo! Acesso Grátis - Internet rápida e
On Wed, 2006-10-25 at 17:39 +0100, Emmanuele Bassi wrote:
Hi Rodrigo;
On Wed, 2006-10-25 at 18:33 +0200, Rodrigo Moya wrote:
That could be a route to explore - I think its really important to
keep GtkWindow really simple in that respect though - it could be
a dialog - it could be a
On Thu, 2006-10-26 at 10:26 +0200, Rodrigo Moya wrote:
yay, so it's probably better to have convenience functions on
GtkApplication, like:
gtk_application_create_dialog
gtk_application_create_main_window
The problem I see with this approach is that the 'typical app window'
concept is
Hi Tim,
thank you for answering to my email, it is good to know there is
interest in the community about this topic. And thank you also for
looking at the tests in that detail. I'm adding my opinion about the
topics you commented below:
El mié, 25-10-2006 a las 17:16 +0200, Tim Janik escribió:
Michael Lawrence writes:
Modular systems are simply easier to maintain.
When said modules are maintained by people who have never heard of
each others, and with different ideas what the modular system is?
I feel that a sophisticated package management system for Windows is a must
for
On Thu, 2006-10-26 at 10:39 +0200, Xavier Bestel wrote:
On Thu, 2006-10-26 at 10:26 +0200, Rodrigo Moya wrote:
yay, so it's probably better to have convenience functions on
GtkApplication, like:
gtk_application_create_dialog
gtk_application_create_main_window
The problem I see
I think that the situation is much better than people here are making
it out to be. Or, at least that's been my experience.
I have Gaim, Gimp, Gnumeric, Glade-3, Workrave, gQview, and Xchat all
using the same GTK+ runtime on WinXP, and they all work flawlessly. As
far as I know, nothing gets
Dominic Lachowicz writes:
I have Gaim, Gimp, Gnumeric, Glade-3, Workrave, gQview, and Xchat all
using the same GTK+ runtime on WinXP, and they all work flawlessly.
Yeah, but you are an expert, and know what you are doing ;) Point me
to an end-user who has a similar setup and I owe you a beer.
On Thu, 2006-10-26 at 15:25 +0200, Rodrigo Moya wrote:
On Thu, 2006-10-26 at 15:41 +0300, Mart Raudsepp wrote:
On Thu, 2006-10-26 at 10:39 +0200, Xavier Bestel wrote:
On Thu, 2006-10-26 at 10:26 +0200, Rodrigo Moya wrote:
yay, so it's probably better to have convenience functions on
Hi,
On Wed, 2006-10-25 at 17:52 +0200, Tim Janik wrote:
- GLib based test programs should never produce a CRITICAL **: or
WARNING **: message and succeed.
Sometimes it is useful to check that a critical message was indeed
shown, and then move on. GStreamer installs a log handler that aborts
On 10/25/06, Havoc Pennington [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Testing those is like testing segfault handling, i.e. just nuts. The
behavior is undefined once they print. (Well, for critical anyway.
g_warning seems to be less consistently used)
Certainly setting out to test all critical cases would
On Thu, 26 Oct 2006, Michael Urman wrote:
On 10/25/06, Havoc Pennington [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Testing those is like testing segfault handling, i.e. just nuts. The
behavior is undefined once they print. (Well, for critical anyway.
g_warning seems to be less consistently used)
Certainly
Havoc Pennington wrote:
Michael Urman wrote:
On 10/25/06, Tim Janik [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
- GLib based test programs should never produce a CRITICAL **: or
WARNING **: message and succeed.
It would be good not to make it impossible to test WARNINGs and
CRITICALs. After
Rodrigo Moya wrote:
On Thu, 2006-10-26 at 15:41 +0300, Mart Raudsepp wrote:
On Thu, 2006-10-26 at 10:39 +0200, Xavier Bestel wrote:
On Thu, 2006-10-26 at 10:26 +0200, Rodrigo Moya wrote:
yay, so it's probably better to have convenience functions on
GtkApplication, like:
On Thu, 26 Oct 2006, Tristan Van Berkom wrote:
Havoc Pennington wrote:
Michael Urman wrote:
On 10/25/06, Tim Janik [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
- GLib based test programs should never produce a CRITICAL **: or
WARNING **: message and succeed.
It would be good not to make it impossible
El mié, 25-10-2006 a las 17:52 +0200, Tim Janik escribió:
- Unit tests should run fast - a test taking 1/10th of a second is a slow
unit test, i've mentioned this in my blog entry already.
Sure, very important, or otherwise developers will tend to neither use
nor maintain the tests.
- in
On Thu, 26 Oct 2006 08:53:01 -0400, Dominic Lachowicz wrote:
I think that the situation is much better than people here are making
it out to be. Or, at least that's been my experience.
Things work fine in 99,99% of cases. It's the remaining 0,01% that's the
problem (and with over 1 million
Could someone give me any hit with this, please ?
--- Luis Ariel Lecca [EMAIL PROTECTED]
escribió:
Hello:
Im trying to make the gtk+ lib release 2.10.6.
I pass the configuration step, however I send
config.log, if somebody wants take a look to it.
When
I do make, appear
Maybe you got lucky, and didn't install anything that dumps shared DLLs to
System32. And you know how to get those applications to behave next to
eachother. Typical end-user doesn't.
The funny thing is that both you and Tor assumed that I did something
special that a normal end-user couldn't
Tim Janik wrote:
On Thu, 26 Oct 2006, Tristan Van Berkom wrote:
Havoc Pennington wrote:
Michael Urman wrote:
On 10/25/06, Tim Janik [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
- GLib based test programs should never produce a CRITICAL **: or
WARNING **: message and succeed.
It would be good not to
On Thu, 26 Oct 2006 13:40:48 -0400, Dominic Lachowicz wrote:
My experience leads me to believe that we'd benefit from an official
installer that didn't dump crap into System32 and for maintainers not
to include GTK+ in their installers. At that point, I don't look any
different than a typical
On 10/26/06, Jernej Simon+AQ0-i+AQ0- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, 26 Oct 2006 13:40:48 -0400, Dominic Lachowicz wrote: My experience leads me to believe that we'd benefit from an official installer that didn't dump crap into System32 and for maintainers not
to include GTK+- in their
On Thu, 26 Oct 2006 14:23:04 -0500, Michael Lawrence wrote:
This is one advantage of bundling GTK+ with packages. The package installers
can place the dlls in the same directory as the executable, which I think
trumps system32.
Exactly. On Windows, DLL search order is working directory,
Hi:
- homogeneous or consistent test output might be desirable in some contexts.
Yes, it is an important point when thinking about a continuous
integration tool for Gnome. If tests for all modules in Gnome agree on a
common output format, then that data can be collected, processed
On 2006-10-26, Jernej =?utf-7?Q?Simon+AQ0-i+AQ0-?= [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
--===0300829580==
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-7
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
On Thu, 26 Oct 2006 14:23:04 -0500, Michael Lawrence wrote:
This is one advantage of bundling GTK+- with
Hi GTKers,
I've noticed that the .ICO format is now a wrapper for BMP or PNG [1].
Has anyone thought about adding support for this in gdk-pixbuf/io-ico.c?
There'll probably be some .ICO images floating around the net shortly
(after Vista release?) that GTK+/Gimp cannot read because of this.
28 matches
Mail list logo
