Re: Properties, what are they for? Wigets writing doubts.

[Alexandre <alpebu yahoo com br>]

  Yes, it's realy the way round... I've seen that..

  So, if it's only for glade, and OO, I think that if I won't use glade, and the widget won't be a parent for 
other widgets, thay don't need properties..

  Thanks.

Paul Pogonyshev <pogonyshev gmx net> escreveu: Alexandre wrote:
>   I'm beginning in widget's writing, and I want to know what is the purpose of the
>   widgets properties. Because, when I look at the gtk widgets, they  have a lot of
>   properties, but this properties can be changed with the gtk_name_set.. functions
>   too..  Like the frame, is has a "label" property to change it's label, but it can
>   be done with the gtk_frame_set_label (or anything like it), so, why use properties? 

They are mostly for bindings and automated builders (Glade) use.  If you never use
them, don't define them.  I think it is pointless to write lots of code you never
use just for `completeness'.  On the other hand, properties can be quite useful.  If
you use standard ones, you should probably define properties in your own widgets too.

(Somebody suggested here that accesor methods are just wrappers over properties.
If you look in the sourcecode, you can find that it is actually the way round,
property get/set functions use accesory methods...)

>   One other thing, I've readed that if I want to make a widget with a child, this
>   has to be a container (GtkContainer), so, I have a widget, it's a x-y plotting
>   widget, and I have other widget, a scale. I want that the plotting wigdget has
>   two childs (2 scale widgets) to be it's x and y axis. So, it's better if the
>   plotting widgets has a GtkContainer as parent? Or other widget else?    

I don't really understand this question...

Paul


                
---------------------------------
 Você quer respostas para suas perguntas? Ou você sabe muito e quer compartilhar seu conhecimento? 
Experimente o Yahoo! Respostas!