Hi,
On 12/15/15 12:25, aitor_czr wrote:
Hi Rainer,
On 20/11/15 12:11, Rainer Weikusat wrote:
>aitor_czr writes:
>> >As i said in ahother thead, i'm experiencing with GtkBuilder.
>> >
>> >The following example runs a widget containig a spinner and four buttons.
>> >
>> >http://gnuinos.org/G
Hi Rainer,
On 20/11/15 12:11, Rainer Weikusat wrote:
aitor_czr writes:
>As i said in ahother thead, i'm experiencing with GtkBuilder.
>
>The following example runs a widget containig a spinner and four buttons.
>
>http://gnuinos.org/GtkBuilder
>
>1.- The first button shows the spinner.
>2.-
Ilog views is such a toolkit. You may never have heard of it, but you
can pay dearly for it if you want.
I can't think of any others.
When
I evaluated xforms, I thought it was optimised for the maintainers'
convenience, and nothing else.
Arnt
___
Sorry:
libgtk-3.0 --> 3.14.5-1+deb8u1
libgtk-3-dev --> 3.14.5-1+deb8u1
glade--> 3.18.3-1
Aitor.
On 11/27/2015 04:47 PM, aitor_czr wrote:
Hi Edward,
I'm using the versions of jessie:
libgtk-3.0
libgtk-3-dev
glade -> 3.18.3-1
But, don't worry, the GUI is done. Now, i have to control
On 26/11/2015 22:50, Rainer Weikusat wrote:
Svante Signell writes:
On Thu, 2015-11-26 at 19:36 +, Roger Leigh wrote:
On 26/11/2015 17:53, Svante Signell wrote:
On Thu, 2015-11-26 at 17:04 +, Roger Leigh wrote:
On 26/11/2015 15:00, Svante Signell wrote:
On Thu, 2015-11-26 at 15:33 +0
Hi Edward,
I'm using the versions of jessie:
libgtk-3.0
libgtk-3-dev
glade -> 3.18.3-1
But, don't worry, the GUI is done. Now, i have to control the signals...
Cheers,
Aitor.
On 11/27/2015 04:14 PM, Edward Bartolo wrote:
Hi Aitor et al,
I tried Glade 3.18.3 but found it enforces the use
#ifndef IMHO
#define IMHO
Hi all,
HTH,
Aitor.
#endif //IMHO
(Hey, i'm learning english with VUAs)
On 11/27/2015 01:00 PM, Didier Kryn wrote:
Le 26/11/2015 17:12, Rainer Weikusat a écrit :
>In case this wasn't plain enough: You shouldn't just use C++ because
>some C++ user is convinced
Hi Aitor et al,
I tried Glade 3.18.3 but found it enforces the use of gtk3.* which
happens to be quite different from previous versions. Even the way
components are managed on a form or a container seems different.
Therefore, it makes sense to ask which version you (Aitor) are using.
I want to avo
Le 26/11/2015 17:12, Rainer Weikusat a écrit :
In case this wasn't plain enough: You shouldn't just use C++ because
some C++ user is convinced that writing anything in another programming
language must be a grievious error. They're all concinved of that and
for that matter, if you're only tool is
On Thu, 2015-11-26 at 22:50 +, Rainer Weikusat wrote:
> Svante Signell writes:
> > On Thu, 2015-11-26 at 19:36 +, Roger Leigh wrote:
> >
> > Well, as long as you work with configure.ac, Makefile.am and confiugre.h.in
> > level for files you won't have any problems with make/autotools. The
Svante Signell writes:
> On Thu, 2015-11-26 at 19:36 +, Roger Leigh wrote:
>> On 26/11/2015 17:53, Svante Signell wrote:
>> > On Thu, 2015-11-26 at 17:04 +, Roger Leigh wrote:
>> > > On 26/11/2015 15:00, Svante Signell wrote:
>> > > > On Thu, 2015-11-26 at 15:33 +0100, aitor_czr wrote:
>>
On Thu, 2015-11-26 at 19:36 +, Roger Leigh wrote:
> On 26/11/2015 17:53, Svante Signell wrote:
> > On Thu, 2015-11-26 at 17:04 +, Roger Leigh wrote:
> > > On 26/11/2015 15:00, Svante Signell wrote:
> > > > On Thu, 2015-11-26 at 15:33 +0100, aitor_czr wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > Hi, what's wro
On 26/11/2015 20:02, KatolaZ wrote:
On Thu, Nov 26, 2015 at 07:14:35PM +, Roger Leigh wrote:
[cut]
That's correct. You can put the build directory anywhere you like.
But, you do need to chdir to the build directory before running
"cmake /path/to/source", just as you do when running
"/pat
On Thu, Nov 26, 2015 at 07:14:35PM +, Roger Leigh wrote:
[cut]
>
> That's correct. You can put the build directory anywhere you like.
> But, you do need to chdir to the build directory before running
> "cmake /path/to/source", just as you do when running
> "/path/to/configure" with autoconf
On 26/11/2015 17:53, Svante Signell wrote:
On Thu, 2015-11-26 at 17:04 +, Roger Leigh wrote:
On 26/11/2015 15:00, Svante Signell wrote:
On Thu, 2015-11-26 at 15:33 +0100, aitor_czr wrote:
Hi, what's wrong with plain GNU make, and the GNU auto-tools?
Nothing is wrong with "plain make",
On 26/11/2015 17:16, KatolaZ wrote:
On Thu, Nov 26, 2015 at 05:04:41PM +, Roger Leigh wrote:
On 26/11/2015 15:00, Svante Signell wrote:
On Thu, 2015-11-26 at 15:33 +0100, aitor_czr wrote:
I agree with you: using "cd build; cmake ../" with *the final purpose* of
installing the spinner in th
aitor_czr writes:
> On 26/11/15 18:05, Roger Leigh wrote:
>
>> It lets you cleanly separate source and build (and have multiple build
>> trees). It
>> also makes cleaning the build tree nothing more than removing the build
>> tree.
>>
>
> Yes, and thas a good thing...
>
> ... Because then you c
On Thu, 2015-11-26 at 17:04 +, Roger Leigh wrote:
> On 26/11/2015 15:00, Svante Signell wrote:
> > On Thu, 2015-11-26 at 15:33 +0100, aitor_czr wrote:
> > >
> > Hi, what's wrong with plain GNU make, and the GNU auto-tools?
>
> Nothing is wrong with "plain make", providing that it meets your n
Hi Roger,
On 26/11/15 18:05, Roger Leigh wrote:
It lets you cleanly separate source and build (and have multiple build trees).
It
also makes cleaning the build tree nothing more than removing the build
tree.
Yes, and thas a good thing...
... Because then you can add the 'build' folder to
On Thu, Nov 26, 2015 at 05:04:41PM +, Roger Leigh wrote:
> On 26/11/2015 15:00, Svante Signell wrote:
> >On Thu, 2015-11-26 at 15:33 +0100, aitor_czr wrote:
> >>I agree with you: using "cd build; cmake ../" with *the final purpose* of
> >>installing the spinner in the system is a contorsionism.
On 26/11/2015 15:00, Svante Signell wrote:
On Thu, 2015-11-26 at 15:33 +0100, aitor_czr wrote:
I agree with you: using "cd build; cmake ../" with *the final purpose* of
installing the spinner in the system is a contorsionism.
Not really, it's directly analogous to VPATH builds with make (and
Rainer Weikusat writes:
[...]
> -
> .PHONY: clean
>
> spinner: spinner.cpp
> g++ -o $@ $< `pkg-config --cflags --libs gtkmm-3.0`
>
> clean:
> -rm spinner
>
>
> So, until things get much more complicated, why not just use make?
Some more advocacy for Seriously Underu
aitor_czr writes:
> Hi Rainer,
>
> I added cmake, which generates the makefile:
>
> https://gitlab.com/aitor_czr/spinner/commits/master
>
> How to build:
>
> mkdir build
> cd build
> cmake ../
> make
In case this wasn't plain enough: You shouldn't just use C++ because
some C++ user is convinced t
___
Dng mailing list
Dng@lists.dyne.org
https://mailinglists.dyne.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/dng
On Thu, 2015-11-26 at 15:33 +0100, aitor_czr wrote:
> Hi KatolaZ,
>
> I agree with you: using "cd build; cmake ../" with *the final purpose* of
> installing the spinner in the system is a contorsionism.
>
> Although any user on planet Earth will install the spinner in any OS. With or
> without sy
Hi KatolaZ,
I agree with you: using "cd build; cmake ../" with *the final purpose*
of installing the spinner in the system is a contorsionism.
Although any user on planet Earth will install the spinner in any OS.
With or without systemd.
But, what happen in the case of a developer? For each
On Thu, Nov 26, 2015 at 01:16:05PM +0100, aitor_czr wrote:
> Hi Rainer,
>
> I added cmake, which generates the makefile:
>
> https://gitlab.com/aitor_czr/spinner/commits/master
>
> How to build:
>
> mkdir build
> cd build
> cmake ../
> make
>
Again, sorry for playing auldie auntie, but why on
Hi Rainer,
I added cmake, which generates the makefile:
https://gitlab.com/aitor_czr/spinner/commits/master
How to build:
mkdir build
cd build
cmake ../
make
On the other hand, adding '-export-dynamic' to 'gcc', removes the
following warnings:
[...]
(spinner:8867): Gtk-WARNING **: Could n
Le 25/11/2015 00:50, Timo Buhrmester a écrit :
What's left after Qt and Gtk have been removed?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FLTK
Thanks. Good to know
I remember also a very simple toolkit called Xforms,
http://xforms-toolkit.org/. I made a few guis with this toolkit between
2000 and
I didn't know it.
On 25/11/15 12:52, Timo Buhrmester wrote:
What's left after Qt and Gtk have been removed?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FLTK
___
Dng mailing list
Dng@lists.dyne.org
https://mailinglists.dyne.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/dng
Changing the subject... :-[
On 25/11/15 13:21, aitor_czr wrote:
Hi Roger, Rainer:
Here is the code of the spinner using Gtkmm3 instead of Gtk3+.
The .xml file generated by Glade is the same.
## SPINNER ###
#include
#include
Gtk::Window* pWindow = 0;
Gtk::Button* pButton1 = 0;
Gtk:
* On 2015 25 Nov 00:07 -0600, Hendrik Boom wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 24, 2015 at 10:32:31PM +0100, Edward Bartolo wrote:
> > Hi Steve et al,
> >
> > The only problem that comes to my mind about Lazarus and Pascal, is
> > many Linux users would not have a Pascal compiler (fpc)
> > installed on their mac
On Tue, Nov 24, 2015 at 10:32:31PM +0100, Edward Bartolo wrote:
> Hi Steve et al,
>
> The only problem that comes to my mind about Lazarus and Pascal, is
> many Linux users would not have a Pascal compiler (fpc)
> installed on their machines. Consequently, netman will fail to build
> while other p
What was wrong with Qt?
-Jonathan
On Tuesday, November 24, 2015 6:51 PM, Timo Buhrmester
wrote:
> What's left after Qt and Gtk have been removed?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FLTK
___
Dng mailing list
Dng@lists.dyne.org
https://mailinglists.d
> What's left after Qt and Gtk have been removed?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FLTK
___
Dng mailing list
Dng@lists.dyne.org
https://mailinglists.dyne.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/dng
Le 24/11/2015 23:18, Nate Bargmann a écrit :
My humble opinion, is that GTK is a dead end, unless one wants to be a
slave to the GNOME project, and there has been a dismissive attitude
shown toward third parties in the past. It's one thing to maintain a
program that uses it, but if I were to sit
My humble opinion, is that GTK is a dead end, unless one wants to be a
slave to the GNOME project, and there has been a dismissive attitude
shown toward third parties in the past. It's one thing to maintain a
program that uses it, but if I were to sit down and learn a toolkit for
a new application
Hi Steve et al,
The only problem that comes to my mind about Lazarus and Pascal, is
many Linux users would not have a Pascal compiler (fpc)
installed on their machines. Consequently, netman will fail to build
while other packages coded in C and C++ would build without problems.
Users have a tenden
On Tue, Nov 24, 2015 at 06:06:44AM +0100, Edward Bartolo wrote:
> Hi All,
>
> That pascal class was horribly written with nested functions down to
> four or five levels! Imagine having to translate that without using
> nested functions. I worked around by using local classes and passed
> parameter
Roger Leigh writes:
> On 23/11/2015 20:43, Rainer Weikusat wrote:
>> Roger Leigh writes:
[lists]
> Reimplementing basic stuff is wasteful on many levels.
"It depends". I happen to be in possession of a fairly large book almost
exculsively dedicated to (sometimes rather crude) reimplementation
Steve Litt writes:
> Edward Bartolo wrote:
[...]
>> There are also Pascal into C translators which I am thinking of trying
>> although the translated code would still need inspection before
>> deployment.
>>
>> Edward
>
> Oh HELL no!
[list of good reasons]
> Don't translate the Lazarus creat
On Tue, 24 Nov 2015 06:02:42 +0100
Edward Bartolo wrote:
> Hi Aitor et al,
>
> What about directly translating the Object Pascal code into C instead
> of doing a reimplementation of the logic? I remember, once I had a
> Pascal class that took me six months to write which I translated into
> C++
On 23/11/2015 20:43, Rainer Weikusat wrote:
Roger Leigh writes:
On 23/11/2015 13:50, Rainer Weikusat wrote:
Roger Leigh writes:
On 23/11/2015 11:49, Nate Bargmann wrote:
* On 2015 23 Nov 00:53 -0600, aitor_czr wrote:
In my opinion, using C with lists will be the most suitable.
Have you l
I think it's a good idea.
Aitor.
On 24/11/15 06:02, Edward Bartolo wrote:
Hi Aitor et al,
What about directly translating the Object Pascal code into C instead
of doing a reimplementation of the logic? I remember, once I had a
Pascal class that took me six months to write which I translated
Hi All,
That pascal class was horribly written with nested functions down to
four or five levels! Imagine having to translate that without using
nested functions. I worked around by using local classes and passed
parameters with pointers.
Netman's frontend was written without using nested functio
Hi Aitor et al,
What about directly translating the Object Pascal code into C instead
of doing a reimplementation of the logic? I remember, once I had a
Pascal class that took me six months to write which I translated into
C++ within a month. I think, this is the most practical approach.
There ar
On Tue, 24 Nov 2015 00:11:12 +0100
aitor_czr wrote:
> Hi Steve,
>
> I would argue that it's possible a "OOP" development without a OOP
> language.
Yes, that's one of the points I was making: You can do it in C.
>
> The "OOP" development is in the mind of the developer.
True, and you never *r
Hi Steve,
I would argue that it's possible a "OOP" development without a OOP language.
The "OOP" development is in the mind of the developer.
Even the OOP languages make it easier, of course...
Cheers :-) ,
Aitor.
On 11/23/2015 04:56 PM, Steve Litt wrote:
I'd start out by saying that, i
Roger Leigh writes:
> On 23/11/2015 13:50, Rainer Weikusat wrote:
>> Roger Leigh writes:
>>> On 23/11/2015 11:49, Nate Bargmann wrote:
* On 2015 23 Nov 00:53 -0600, aitor_czr wrote:
> In my opinion, using C with lists will be the most suitable.
Have you looked at what glib prov
On Mon, Nov 23, 2015 at 10:58:47AM -0500, Steve Litt wrote:
> On Mon, 23 Nov 2015 06:45:54 -0500
> Hendrik Boom wrote:
>
>
> > There is a well-known hack in C wheereby you rely on C allocating
> > fields of structures independently of later fields.
> >
> > Thus with
> > struct foo{char c, int
On 23/11/2015 18:13, Edward Bartolo wrote:
Hi All,
The backend, in a way, already handles lists. All I need to do is
extract the code and put it in a struct. This 'reinventing of the
wheel' will avoid having to content ourselves with what libraries
offer whatever that may be. With netman, the go
Hi All,
The backend, in a way, already handles lists. All I need to do is
extract the code and put it in a struct. This 'reinventing of the
wheel' will avoid having to content ourselves with what libraries
offer whatever that may be. With netman, the goal was to avoid as many
dependencies as possi
On 23/11/2015 13:50, Rainer Weikusat wrote:
Roger Leigh writes:
On 23/11/2015 11:49, Nate Bargmann wrote:
* On 2015 23 Nov 00:53 -0600, aitor_czr wrote:
In my opinion, using C with lists will be the most suitable.
Have you looked at what glib provides? It is an underlying library of
GTK an
Steve Litt writes:
> On Mon, 23 Nov 2015 06:45:54 -0500
> Hendrik Boom wrote:
>> There is a well-known hack in C wheereby you rely on C allocating
>> fields of structures independently of later fields.
>>
>> Thus with
>> struct foo{char c, int d, float e,}
>> and
>> struct bar{char c, int d,
On Mon, 23 Nov 2015 06:45:54 -0500
Hendrik Boom wrote:
> There is a well-known hack in C wheereby you rely on C allocating
> fields of structures independently of later fields.
>
> Thus with
> struct foo{char c, int d, float e,}
> and
> struct bar{char c, int d,}
>
> (forgive me if I need
I'd start out by saying that, in my opinion, OOP isn't the right
paradigm for every situation.
If you're talking about a picklist, where you display the picklist and
the user picks the desired item, then I think OOP is a pretty good
paradigm because it matches the data.
In this case, the picklist
Roger Leigh writes:
> On 23/11/2015 11:49, Nate Bargmann wrote:
>> * On 2015 23 Nov 00:53 -0600, aitor_czr wrote:
>>> In my opinion, using C with lists will be the most suitable.
>>
>> Have you looked at what glib provides? It is an underlying library of
>> GTK and seems to contain many such solu
* On 2015 23 Nov 06:18 -0600, aitor_czr wrote:
> Hi Nate,
>
> Yes, i'm taking a look at this.
>
> gtk, glib, atk, cairo, pango, gdk-pixbuf...
Before you guys go too far down the GTK rabbit hole, which will
eventually force you into GTK3, you may want to ponder this:
https://igurublog.wordpress.
On 23/11/2015 11:48, Hendrik Boom wrote:
On Sun, Nov 22, 2015 at 01:06:04PM +0100, Edward Bartolo wrote:
Hi All,
Is it possible to use classes and objects while using gtk2/3? I
noticed that only functions are used and that class use is ovoided by
prepending functions with a group string. As far
On 23/11/2015 11:49, Nate Bargmann wrote:
* On 2015 23 Nov 00:53 -0600, aitor_czr wrote:
In my opinion, using C with lists will be the most suitable.
Have you looked at what glib provides? It is an underlying library of
GTK and seems to contain many such solutions.
Using GLib for structures
Hi Nate,
Yes, i'm taking a look at this.
gtk, glib, atk, cairo, pango, gdk-pixbuf...
Aitor.
On 23/11/15 12:49, Nate Bargmann wrote:
Have you looked at what glib provides? It is an underlying library of
GTK and seems to contain many such solutions.
- Nate
__
On Mon, Nov 23, 2015 at 05:49:29AM -0600, Nate Bargmann wrote:
> * On 2015 23 Nov 00:53 -0600, aitor_czr wrote:
> > In my opinion, using C with lists will be the most suitable.
>
> Have you looked at what glib provides? It is an underlying library of
> GTK and seems to contain many such solutions
* On 2015 23 Nov 00:53 -0600, aitor_czr wrote:
> In my opinion, using C with lists will be the most suitable.
Have you looked at what glib provides? It is an underlying library of
GTK and seems to contain many such solutions.
- Nate
--
"The optimist proclaims that we live in the best of all
p
On Sun, Nov 22, 2015 at 01:06:04PM +0100, Edward Bartolo wrote:
> Hi All,
>
> Is it possible to use classes and objects while using gtk2/3? I
> noticed that only functions are used and that class use is ovoided by
> prepending functions with a group string. As far as I know, C can
> still use stru
On Sun, Nov 22, 2015 at 03:09:34PM +, Edward Bartolo wrote:
> Yes, of course, C structures can be declared that way, but the fact
> remains that the contents of the ancestor's structure are not merged
> into the heir. This means, to access a member N ancestors deep, one
> has to specify all of
In my opinion, using C with lists will be the most suitable.
Aitor.
On 11/23/2015 07:42 AM, Edward Bartolo wrote:
Hi Aitor et al,
Thinking a little bit about C, and recalling what Reiner explained
earlier, I should think, we can create our own C library to handle
lists as in classes without
Hi Aitor et al,
Thinking a little bit about C, and recalling what Reiner explained
earlier, I should think, we can create our own C library to handle
lists as in classes without actually importing more dependencies: for
that we use a struct that has function members, just like a class. Our
impleme
> Have you a preference for using c++ in netman?
The frontend is a complex piece of software using lists. Some parts
were complicated to code even in Lazarus Pascal: imagine the
complexity required to achieve the same thing in C.
Edward
> On 22/11/2015, Rainer Weikusat wrote:
> Rainer Weikusat
Rainer Weikusat writes:
[...]
> This mechanism as certain tendency make C++ developers go bezerk with a
> particular type of strong rage, but it's entirely usuable in practice,
> although more work than having it all laid out for oneself.
In the interest of fairness: This 'more work' of course
Hi Edward, Steve,
It's possible to use classes and objects only while using gtk3.
Have you a preference for using c++ in netman?
As Jude Nelson said: c++ is not a standardized language.
Aitor.
P.D.- Sorry again for the subject, Steve, i have no choice...
On 11/22/2015 06:48 PM, Steve Litt
Steve Litt writes:
> On Sun, 22 Nov 2015 13:13:47 +
> Rainer Weikusat wrote:
>
>> Edward Bartolo writes:
>> > Is it possible to use classes and objects while using gtk2/3? I
>> > noticed that only functions are used and that class use is ovoided
>> > by prepending functions with a group str
On Sun, 22 Nov 2015 15:09:34 +
Edward Bartolo wrote:
> Yes, of course, C structures can be declared that way, but the fact
> remains that the contents of the ancestor's structure are not merged
> into the heir. This means, to access a member N ancestors deep, one
> has to specify all of them
On Sun, 22 Nov 2015 13:13:47 +
Rainer Weikusat wrote:
> Edward Bartolo writes:
> > Is it possible to use classes and objects while using gtk2/3? I
> > noticed that only functions are used and that class use is ovoided
> > by prepending functions with a group string. As far as I know, C can
>
Yes, of course, C structures can be declared that way, but the fact
remains that the contents of the ancestor's structure are not merged
into the heir. This means, to access a member N ancestors deep, one
has to specify all of them in the correct order. The purpose of
inheritance is to avoid this r
Edward Bartolo writes:
> Is it possible to use classes and objects while using gtk2/3? I
> noticed that only functions are used and that class use is ovoided by
> prepending functions with a group string. As far as I know, C can
> still use structs that are attached to a set of data and a set of
>
aitor_czr writes:
> On 20/11/15 12:11, Rainer Weikusat wrote:
>> "Works for me" (as usual, the dbus invasion could be successfully
>> repelled by deinstalling everything which came in the way until dbus
>> could be deinstalled itself without affecting any 'real' functionality).
> Almost certainly
Hi All,
Is it possible to use classes and objects while using gtk2/3? I
noticed that only functions are used and that class use is ovoided by
prepending functions with a group string. As far as I know, C can
still use structs that are attached to a set of data and a set of
functions, but without i
Hi Aitor,
As I told you earlier in this thread, I am am joining you in your
experimentation with gtk. I have just created a little calendar
application using the calendar widget. After this, I can try to create
the GUI for netman but obviously without the coding.
Edward
On 21/11/2015, aitor_czr
Hi Rainer,
And thanks for your test...
On 20/11/15 12:11, Rainer Weikusat wrote:
"Works for me" (as usual, the dbus invasion could be successfully
repelled by deinstalling everything which came in the way until dbus
could be deinstalled itself without affecting any 'real' functionality).
Almos
aitor_czr writes:
> As i said in ahother thead, i'm experiencing with GtkBuilder.
>
> The following example runs a widget containig a spinner and four buttons.
>
> http://gnuinos.org/GtkBuilder
>
> 1.- The first button shows the spinner.
> 2.- The second button hides the spinner.
> 3.- The third
Sorry, the link was wrong:
http://gnuinos.org/GtkBuilder/
Aitor.
On 19/11/15 17:18, aitor_czr wrote:
Hi all,
As i said in ahother thead, i'm experiencing with GtkBuilder.
The following example runs a widget containig a spinner and four buttons.
http://gnuinos.org/GtkBuilder
1.- The first
Hi all,
As i said in ahother thead, i'm experiencing with GtkBuilder.
The following example runs a widget containig a spinner and four buttons.
http://gnuinos.org/GtkBuilder
1.- The first button shows the spinner.
2.- The second button hides the spinner.
3.- The third button starts the spinne
82 matches
Mail list logo
