Re: GNOME_STOCK_EMPTY

[Owen Taylor <otaylor redhat com>]

Joel Becker <jlbec evilplan org> writes:

> On Sat, Nov 10, 2001 at 06:54:19PM +0100, Tim Janik wrote:
> > On 9 Nov 2001, Havoc Pennington wrote:
> > >  alignment = gtk_alignment_new (0.5, 0.5, 1.0, 1.0);
> > >  gtk_icon_size_lookup (GTK_ICON_SIZE_WHATEVER, &width, &height);
> > >  gtk_widget_set_size_request (alignment, width, height);
> > > 
> > > Then you have a stock-icon-sized spacer.
> > 
> > sure that'd work. but isn't it a hell more inconvenient than just
> > having an empty stock item?
> > i can't see any good reason to not provide one.
> 
> 	Well, I chatted with Havoc, and I was satisfied with his
> answer.  But I don't know which is more "proper".  My thought is
> basically to fill in a column of stock items, some of which may be
> clear.  I don't know which is the "proper, clean" solution:
> 
> i = gtk_image_from_stock(GTK_STOCK_FOO);
> gtk_container_add(i)
> i = gtk_image_from_stock(GTK_STOCK_EMPTY);
> gtk_container_add(i)
> i = gtk_image_from_stock(GTK_STOCK_FOO);
> gtk_container_add(i)
> 
> or
> 
> i = gtk_image_from_stock(GTK_STOCK_FOO);
> gtk_container_add(i)
> i = gtk_alignment_new();
> a = gtk_icon_size_lookup();
> gtk_widget_set_size_request(i, a);
> gtk_container_add(i);
> i = gtk_image_from_stock(GTK_STOCK_FOO);
> gtk_container_add(i)

I actually agree that an empty stock item would be useful. 
If you file it in bugzilla, we won't forget to make a
decision on this for 2.2. 

(Or maybe we can sneak it in for 2.0 but anything we don't
have to add at this point is better not added.)

Regards,
                                        Owen