Re: Escaping in (#51382)
- From: Owen Taylor <otaylor redhat com>
- To: gtk-devel-list gnome org
- Subject: Re: Escaping in (#51382)
- Date: 16 Mar 2001 18:49:27 -0500
Tim Janik <timj gtk org> writes:
> On 16 Mar 2001, Owen Taylor wrote:
>
> > Bug 51382 points out that there is no way to indicate
> > literal '/' characters in a GtkItemFactoryEntry.
>
> that was a design decision i admit ;)
>
> > (On a related topic, there is also a bug so that when
> > turning item factory strings entries into paths,
> > "/File/Add __" gets turned to "/File Add " not
> > "/File Add _"
>
> i highly suspect that that's a bug in the uline parsing code
> you added ;)
Did I say otherwise? ;-)
> > And a bug where gtk_item_factory_print_func doesn't
> > handle an itemfactory entry containing literal \n.)
>
> <shocked>
> heck, what characters do people _not_ use in item factory
> entries?
If we don't allow this, then we need to trap it. But I don't
think there is any real reason not to allow it. GtkMenuItem
will work fine with multi-line strings.
> > We don't really have an escaping standard in GTK+:
>
> that's not completely true, the item factory already does
> C string like escapes for i think \",
I don't see that anywhere. So, add another to list to the
characters that are going to cause problems ;-)
> and besides that, i'd count the rc-file parsing behaviour the
> "official" standard... well, as official as you can get basically.
> > * GScanner and hence RC files support C-string like
> > escaping with \n \r \t \b \f and octal escapes.
> >
> > This would imply:
> >
> > "/_File/\\/var\\/log\\/messages"
>
> we don't actually have an option here, the item factory
> dumps are supposed to be GScanner parsable, so we'll have
> to use this style.
OK, I'll do that then.
> > * GMarkup, and hence markup-labels, uses, XML/SGML
> > entities, so:
> >
> > "/_File/f;varf;logf;messages"
> >
> > I think the first one is probably a bit more expected
> > and less unreadable so I'll suggest that we should do
> > that.
>
> probably. though the first one is quite unreadable already ;)
Well, I said, less unreadable. Not more readable.
Owen
[
Date Prev][
Date Next] [
Thread Prev][
Thread Next]
[
Thread Index]
[
Date Index]
[
Author Index]