Re: Widget states for 3.0 (and 2.18?)

[Paul Davis <paul linuxaudiosystems com>]

On Mon, Aug 17, 2009 at 12:06 PM, Thomas Wood<thos gnome org> wrote:
> On Mon, 2009-08-17 at 10:42 -0500, Cody Russell wrote:
>> Right, but I guess that's part of the point of all this.  Wouldn't it
>> make more sense if we try to move this type of information into a
>> single location instead of having these kind of work-arounds?
>
> Correct, my point was really that there seem to be two distinct data
> sets needed: one mutually exclusive set and one that isn't.

semantically speaking, what aspects of a widget's "state" in the
broadest possible sense are required to be mutually exclusive?

from my perspective (partially as reporter of
http://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=407215), this just seems to
be a hangover of a misconception that was made early in GTK's design.
its hard for me to see anything other than

          active/inactive
          sensitive/insensitive

that are required to be mutually exclusive. its only "paired states"
that require this kind of thing, and if we have 2 of them already,
thats probably just about enough. am i missing something?