[Glade-devel] Binding independent names

[johnp martianrock com (John (J5) Palmieri)]

On Tue, 2004-01-13 at 14:15, Paolo Borelli wrote:
<snip>
> IMO adding one more widget (the dropdown) would make UI even more
> painful: the user already has to go trough a lot of pointing and
> clicking just to add a simple signal (as I said in another mail this
> could well be one of the reasons why most of the projects prefer simply
> using g_signal_connect() ).

It take a couple of clicks.  What would be nice would be for the most
common event to be assumed and all you do it type in the event callback
which would also be autofilled as it is now.  That is a seperate issue
though.

> Beside it would not work: FooHBox may have been subclassed from GtkHBox
> so in the TreeView with the list of the signals you should have *both*
> at the same time.

In the signal TreeView you would have both (verbage is just an example):

HBox for Gtk Signals:
...
HBox for Foo Signals:
...

as opposed to

GtkHBox Signals:
...
FooHBox Signals:
...

> > We all might be programmers but if we want to make this easy for newbies
> > flooding them with GtkWindow when they might be writting Gtk.Window
> > might be confusing.  If you split them from the begining they get used
> > to the fact that Gtk is actualy seperate from Window.  Gtk is a
> > windowing toolkit package and Window is a class of that package.
>
> It *might* be confusing... lets stick to the facts, Glade2 uses
> GtkWindow since forever and I never heard a complain or a question.

Well we just did here a complaint from a user who programs in Python and
got a bit confused.

> Another thing to mention is the also on the first page of the Editor
> "Class:" contains GtkWindow.

This is where I suggested adding the Package dropdown. So 

Class: GtkWindow

Would become

Package: Gtk \/
Class: Window

Not many people edit this so complexity is a moot point.  It doesn't
realy change anything but does make it more generic and less C binding
centric.

> I really think we are arguing over a detail...

I don't know if arguing is the right word.  I agree that it isn't all
that important but the topic was brought up so I thought I would share
my views.  The details are realy important however as people might not
rabidly complain about it but it is still a consitency issue.  Splitting
package and class solves that issue without adding all that much
complexity.  In fact I belive it clears things up for those who are not
part of the super C coder club (Those who can redily apply OO tequniques
to a procedural language :-) It also cuts down on verbosity in the
interface.  How many times do I have to see Gtk first when all I want is
a Window?  I just see it as a good middleground between having Glade
become language sensitive or making alternitive language programmers
fell like they are second class citizens.  

Anyway I don't have time to program it right now so I'm not going to
care much one way or another.  If somone sees my posts and says hey this
is a good idea and easy to do, then all the better.  At the point Glade
gets integrated into Scaffold and I have time I might just write a patch
and see how people like it :-)  So I leave it to the experts to decide
for now.

--
J5

> ciao
>       paolo