Re: bindings "action" signals

[Murray Cumming <murrayc murrayc com>]

On Wed, 2006-07-19 at 19:53 +0100, Duncan Coutts wrote:
> Hi Murray,
> 
> (cc'ing to the language bindings list as it's relevant to other
> bindings)
> 
> So, some signals are "action" signals. Of these many are ones that
> applications do not need to connect to because they're used only for key
> bindings.
> 
> I believe that originally gtkmm did not bind any of these. I understand
> that you now bind some of them, eg:
> http://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=304103
> 
> Owen suggested I ask you if you have a list of the useful ones that you
> decided to bind.

I think we bind almost none of them. And I've been trying to get an
answer out the Gtk+ developers about which ones really should be bound.
http://mail.gnome.org/archives/gtk-devel-list/2006-April/msg00160.html

> I was having the problem that I bound all of them and then got the users
> thoroughly confused since many of these signals did not do what the
> users expected them to do.

Yes, you can greatly improve a binding by not wrapping these signals.

>  For example connecting to the
> GtkTextView::insert-at-cursor signal appears to do nothing (it never got
> called). So I was hoping I could just not bind any of these action
> signals and spare my users some confusion. However I've been advised
> that there are some useful ones.

-- 
Murray Cumming
murrayc murrayc com
www.murrayc.com
www.openismus.com