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 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 n
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
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 arou
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 Sun, Oct 10, 2010 at 4:23 AM, Tristan Van Berkom
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 at least comment/not
On Sun, Oct 10, 2010 at 4:23 AM, Tristan Van Berkom
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 see it.
>
> its im
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
> 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 is to mop up Gt
Hi,
On Sun, Oct 10, 2010 at 10:41 AM, Tristan Van Berkom
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 is to mop up GtkBox cruft...
> I'm not sure that having all the children stop expanding
>
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
> 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 cont
Hi,
On Sun, Oct 10, 2010 at 6:36 AM, Tristan Van Berkom
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 set halign/valign on
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
> > wrote:
> > > On Thu, 2010-10-07 at 10:55 -0400, Matthias Clasen wrote:
> > >> On Thu, Oct 7, 2010 at 10:48 AM, Trista
On Sun, 2010-10-10 at 02:14 -0400, Matthias Clasen wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 7, 2010 at 11:30 AM, Tristan Van Berkom
> 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
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> > However I would really appreciate
On Thu, Oct 7, 2010 at 11:30 AM, Tristan Van Berkom
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
>> wrote:
>>
>> > However I would really appreciate it if a widget's placement
>> > inside a container can still be clearly
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.
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 gim
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 may
Hi,
On Thu, Oct 7, 2010 at 1:18 PM, Federico Mena Quintero
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 crappy.
(In fact I'd
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* real
Hi,
On Thu, Oct 7, 2010 at 10:48 AM, Tristan Van Berkom
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 with child proper
On Thu, 2010-10-07 at 10:55 -0400, Matthias Clasen wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 7, 2010 at 10:48 AM, Tristan Van Berkom
> 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
On Thu, Oct 7, 2010 at 10:48 AM, Tristan Van Berkom
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 with child properties
On Thu, Oct 7, 2010 at 9:23 AM, Havoc Pennington 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 the layouts
On Thu, 2010-10-07 at 10:03 -0400, Havoc Pennington wrote:
> 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
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 Wed, Oct 6, 2010 at 11:36 PM, Tristan Van Berkom
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 what I have on the
'g
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 wrap
27 matches
Mail list logo
