Re: Looking at EggToolbar
- From: Soeren Sandmann <sandmann daimi au dk>
- To: Owen Taylor <otaylor redhat com>
- Cc: gtk-devel-list gnome org
- Subject: Re: Looking at EggToolbar
- Date: 05 Apr 2003 20:37:14 +0200
Owen Taylor <otaylor redhat com> writes:
> - It seems to me that expandable/homogeneous/pack_end should
> be child properties, not properties. While either would
> work, doing them as child properties is considerably
> more consistent with the rest of GTK+. (expand, not
> expandable, BTW)
>
> The question then is whether we can keep
>
> egg_tool_item_set_pack_end (tool_item);
>
> Or need to switch to:
>
> egg_tool_bar_set_pack_end (tool_bar, tool_item)
>
> I think it's OK to keep them first way.
If we keep them the first way, what will happen if you call
egg_tool_item_set_pack_end() on an item that isn't inside a toolbar?
> - The names egg_toolbar_append/prepend/insert_tool_item()
> are pretty cumbersome for the primary API. Can we just
> go with plain append/prepend/insert()?
I have changed these in CVS. What about _remove_tool_item()? That
function seems to be just a duplicate of gtk_container_remove(). But
see my other mail about compatibility.
> what I might suggest instead is functions on EggToolItem
> that look at the toolbar and get these configuration options:
>
> egg_tool_item_get_orientation()
What is this going to return when the item is not inside a toolbar?
Are you required to pass in a toolbar?
> Finally, just a few things I saw when browsing through the
> code:
These are all fixed in CVS now.
Søren
[
Date Prev][
Date Next] [
Thread Prev][
Thread Next]
[
Thread Index]
[
Date Index]
[
Author Index]