On Fri, 2005-09-16 at 12:14 +0100, Gustavo J. A. M. Carneiro wrote:
> On Fri, 2005-09-16 at 11:02 +0100, Damon Chaplin wrote:
> > avoid composite
> > children unless absolutely necessary (and even then only use simple
> > ones).
>
> I don't agree it's fair to limit developers' options on code
Gustavo J. A. M. Carneiro wrote:
[...]
avoid composite
children unless absolutely necessary (and even then only use simple
ones).
I don't agree it's fair to limit developers' options on code reuse
just for the sake of GUI builders. I'd rather pack an hbox into my
widget than duplicate its l
Damon Chaplin wrote:
[...]
I think you guys should probably give up on the idea of handling
standard GTK+ widgets generically. There are so many special cases that
it is almost impossible.
I definitly agree that some compromises are needed, but I dont think that
just because special cases have
On Fri, 2005-09-16 at 11:02 +0100, Damon Chaplin wrote:
> But what you should aim for is to be able to handle external widget
> libraries generically (e.g. there is very little special-case code to
> handle the GnomeDB widgets in glade-2).
Indeed.
>
> You can then write up a guide for widget
On Thu, 2005-09-15 at 15:46 -0400, Tristan Van Berkom wrote:
> as specially noted that there are in effect three types of child
> widgets; "normal", "added as a result of a property value"; "added
> as a composite child which is constantly present".
>
> I think that if we're going to talk of idea
On 9/16/05, Todd Berman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thu, 2005-09-15 at 23:24 +0200, David Christian Berg wrote:
> > Therefore I'm certain it won't break anything. I personally use the
> > trick reminic mentioned since a long while with my eXperience theme.
> > Since I use this trick quite often
