[Anjuta-list] Re: [Glade-users] Glade rewritting source files question

[Harring Figueiredo <harringf yahoo com>]

--- Ishan Chattopadhyaya <ichattopadhyaya hclinfinet com> wrote:
> > In Glade, when you save the project and "build" the source, it adds to
> > the interface.c and callbacks.c files. If I create a window with some
> > widgets, build the tree and later go back and rename a couple widgets
> > instead of using the generic widget1 type names and then save and build,
> > Glad once again *adds* to the interface.c and callbacks.c files. It
> > would be really nice if Glade renamed the appropriate routines in those
> > files.
> 
> > I don't know how doable this is, but it would be nice. Then I don't have
> > to delete signal code and interface code out of these files all the
> > time. It's really kind of annoying.
> 
> I hope most would agree with me that this is a tough feature to implement.
> Also, making any changes to the callbacks.c/callbacks.h through glade can be
> dangerous if this feature is not well implemented. This would involve
> scanning through these files for the previous callback func and subsequently
> replace that with the new one. My instinct tells me that having this feature
> might unstabalise Glade. Just consider an example. Suppose i create a
> button_clicked callback function through glade. By default, it's parameters
> would be (GtkButton *button, void *user_data). In case you change them
> manually (to say, on_button1_clicked(GtkWidget *, gchar *);), what's Glade
> supposed to do when you rename the button and rebuild the source??
> 
> Regds,
> Ishan
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Glade-users maillist  -  Glade-users ximian com


  I really like the freedom that Glade gives me with the callback.* file. 
  If the Glade developers try to add such feature, it will eventually be doing
things behind our back that we have no glue as what is happening. I do agree
that is it anoying to remove the code from the callback.* files from time to
time; however, I would rather do it myself and remove what I want then have
something doing it for me based on hints and then screw up my work.

  I would vote to keep Glade simple the way it is.  ( Simple here does not
undermine the great job that this piece of software can do and is -- I am still
to find one software out there of such calliber - even some comercial one !).

My 2 cents.

HArring.

> http://lists.ximian.com/mailman/listinfo/glade-users


__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Faith Hill - Exclusive Performances, Videos & More
http://faith.yahoo.com