Re: GtkBuilder status

On Thu, 2006-05-11 at 15:55 -0500, Yevgen Muntyan wrote:
> Owen Taylor wrote:
> >>It's, err, wrong to claim that another piece of soft is perfect, and 
> >>make this piece of soft "perfect assuming that's perfect",
> >>and say "is that's not perfect, complain about it, but this piece of 
> >>soft will still assume that piece of soft is perfect".
> >>Are we living in ideal world yet?
> >>    
> >>
> >
> >No, it's not wrong. If GtkUIManager was part of some other system,
> >then maybe we might want to work around its problems, not try to fix
> >them.
> >
> >But that's not the case here. Its part of GTK+.
> >  
> >
> You are not taking into account that people outside have
> to work around GTK problems, or they do something in a way
> "not supported because we have a perfect thing here".
> This "works for me or I'll fix it" may work only for gtk 
> developers, not for others.

You are arguing for the GTK+ developers (apparently you don't
consider yourself one) to add one feature to GTK+, instead of
fixing another. 

> This reminds me of GtkTextView::cursor-moved thing.
> "What really needs to be done is to do it right", and as the effect,
> *nothing*.

This list is for people who want to fix things in GTK+, not for
people who want to complain about things not being fixed by others...

> >glade or replacement UI builders will suck much more if there are two
> >ways of creating menus in them. Inevitably.
> >  
> >
> So far here were words of two ui builders authors: Johan who
> writes gazpacho and makes GtkUIBuilder work well with Gazpacho
> and vice versa, and Tristan who dislikes the idea of "only
> GtkUIManager" :)

There has been a fair bit of quoting without attribution on
this thread, and I don't think Tristan's mail has made it to the 
list at all, so I can't really comment.


[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]