On Thu, 2010-10-07 at 12:36 +0900, Tristan Van Berkom wrote:
Hi all,
With recent developments I've found that GtkWrapBox in the end is
not what was needed to meet the requirements of Glom (hence the writeup
of the different container... coming in another mail).
FWIW, after leaving this
On Thu, 2010-10-07 at 12:36 +0900, Tristan Van Berkom wrote:
Furthermore, the gimp's newer versions is now using GtkToolPalette
in place of the older wrap-box (the gimp had been using a similar
wrap-box widget to wrap items around in one of it's toolbars).
Shouldn't GtkToolPalette (and maybe
On Mon, 2010-10-11 at 11:06 +0200, Murray Cumming wrote:
On Thu, 2010-10-07 at 12:36 +0900, Tristan Van Berkom wrote:
Furthermore, the gimp's newer versions is now using GtkToolPalette
in place of the older wrap-box (the gimp had been using a similar
wrap-box widget to wrap items around in
On Mon, 2010-10-11 at 19:54 +0900, Tristan Van Berkom wrote:
On Mon, 2010-10-11 at 11:06 +0200, Murray Cumming wrote:
On Thu, 2010-10-07 at 12:36 +0900, Tristan Van Berkom wrote:
Furthermore, the gimp's newer versions is now using GtkToolPalette
in place of the older wrap-box (the gimp
On Mon, 2010-10-11 at 13:04 +0200, Murray Cumming wrote:
On Mon, 2010-10-11 at 19:54 +0900, Tristan Van Berkom wrote:
On Mon, 2010-10-11 at 11:06 +0200, Murray Cumming wrote:
On Thu, 2010-10-07 at 12:36 +0900, Tristan Van Berkom wrote:
Furthermore, the gimp's newer versions is now using
On Thu, Oct 7, 2010 at 11:30 AM, Tristan Van Berkom
trista...@openismus.com wrote:
On Thu, 2010-10-07 at 10:55 -0400, Matthias Clasen wrote:
On Thu, Oct 7, 2010 at 10:48 AM, Tristan Van Berkom
trista...@openismus.com wrote:
However I would really appreciate it if a widget's placement
On Sun, 2010-10-10 at 02:14 -0400, Matthias Clasen wrote:
On Thu, Oct 7, 2010 at 11:30 AM, Tristan Van Berkom
trista...@openismus.com wrote:
On Thu, 2010-10-07 at 10:55 -0400, Matthias Clasen wrote:
On Thu, Oct 7, 2010 at 10:48 AM, Tristan Van Berkom
trista...@openismus.com wrote:
On Sun, 2010-10-10 at 17:23 +0900, Tristan Van Berkom wrote:
On Sun, 2010-10-10 at 02:14 -0400, Matthias Clasen wrote:
On Thu, Oct 7, 2010 at 11:30 AM, Tristan Van Berkom
trista...@openismus.com wrote:
On Thu, 2010-10-07 at 10:55 -0400, Matthias Clasen wrote:
On Thu, Oct 7, 2010 at
Hi,
On Sun, Oct 10, 2010 at 6:36 AM, Tristan Van Berkom
trista...@openismus.com wrote:
bottom or right size of the Grid. (if the user wants the
grid children not to expand at all, they should only have
to pack the whole grid into another container and say that
the grid does not expand).
Or
On Sun, 2010-10-10 at 10:10 -0400, Havoc Pennington wrote:
Hi,
On Sun, Oct 10, 2010 at 6:36 AM, Tristan Van Berkom
trista...@openismus.com wrote:
bottom or right size of the Grid. (if the user wants the
grid children not to expand at all, they should only have
to pack the whole grid
On Sun, 2010-10-10 at 12:34 -0400, Havoc Pennington wrote:
Hi,
On Sun, Oct 10, 2010 at 10:41 AM, Tristan Van Berkom
trista...@openismus.com wrote:
I would only expect the expand to be distributed evenly among
children as, thats what GtkBox does ;-)
But the whole point of the exercise
On Sun, Oct 10, 2010 at 4:23 AM, Tristan Van Berkom
trista...@openismus.com wrote:
- in get_preferred_width() and get_preferred_height() it seems
you do the same request regardless of the request mode... it may
that you check this somewhere else in your request code but I did
not
On Sun, Oct 10, 2010 at 4:23 AM, Tristan Van Berkom
trista...@openismus.com wrote:
- It seems you are storing the allocated/requested sizes in your
GridLine structs, I guess this is convenient for your code's clarity
but might be confusing to some readers. I think its important
to
Oh, another thing to have is probably h-spacing and v-spacing for the
grid-wide space between rows and columns. For per-column or per-row
spacing you could use a margin or a spacer widget placed on that row
(?)
If not clear the idea of the exercise I was doing is to figure out how
you'd naturally
On Thu, Oct 7, 2010 at 9:23 AM, Havoc Pennington h...@pobox.com wrote:
Hi,
I did a little exercise a while ago of screenshotting some apps that
seemed to be doing moderately complex layout and trying to write down
what would be intuitive / no-redundant-typing sequences of commands to
pack
On Thu, Oct 7, 2010 at 10:48 AM, Tristan Van Berkom
trista...@openismus.com wrote:
However I would really appreciate it if a widget's placement
inside a container can still be clearly introspected and defined
with container child properties (in other words I think the widget
should be built
On Thu, 2010-10-07 at 10:55 -0400, Matthias Clasen wrote:
On Thu, Oct 7, 2010 at 10:48 AM, Tristan Van Berkom
trista...@openismus.com wrote:
However I would really appreciate it if a widget's placement
inside a container can still be clearly introspected and defined
with container child
Hi,
On Thu, Oct 7, 2010 at 10:48 AM, Tristan Van Berkom
trista...@openismus.com wrote:
However I would really appreciate it if a widget's placement
inside a container can still be clearly introspected and defined
with container child properties (in other words I think the widget
should be
On Thu, 2010-10-07 at 09:23 -0400, Havoc Pennington wrote:
Don't know if this will make sense to anyone else but I do think it's
useful to take some real-world layouts and see how much typing they'd
require
This is a very interesting exercise, and the pseudocode for those
examples *is* really
Hi,
On Thu, Oct 7, 2010 at 1:18 PM, Federico Mena Quintero
feder...@ximian.com wrote:
However, who writes UIs by hand these days? Doesn't everyone just use
Glade?
It's a valid point, but I don't know that Glade is always easiest. I
don't think it's a good excuse for making the actual API
On Thu, 2010-10-07 at 15:05 -0400, Havoc Pennington wrote:
It's a valid point, but I don't know that Glade is always easiest. I
don't think it's a good excuse for making the actual API crappy.
Oh, no, of course not. What I mean is that if few apps actually do
complex layout by hand, then
On Thu, 2010-10-07 at 12:36 +0900, Tristan Van Berkom wrote:
Hi all,
With recent developments I've found that GtkWrapBox in the end is
not what was needed to meet the requirements of Glom (hence the writeup
of the different container... coming in another mail).
Furthermore, the gimp's
On Thu, 2010-10-07 at 14:37 -0500, Federico Mena Quintero wrote:
On Thu, 2010-10-07 at 15:05 -0400, Havoc Pennington wrote:
It's a valid point, but I don't know that Glade is always easiest. I
don't think it's a good excuse for making the actual API crappy.
Oh, no, of course not. What I
Hi all,
With recent developments I've found that GtkWrapBox in the end is
not what was needed to meet the requirements of Glom (hence the writeup
of the different container... coming in another mail).
Furthermore, the gimp's newer versions is now using GtkToolPalette
in place of the older
On Wed, Oct 6, 2010 at 11:36 PM, Tristan Van Berkom
trista...@openismus.com wrote:
Any takers ? thoughts ?
One thing that I would like to save from this whole experiment is your
experience in wfh containers... I've started writing a grid widget
like Havoc was describing a while ago. I have put
25 matches
Mail list logo
