Re: questions re: aux info, size request

On Sat, 2010-09-11 at 21:05 -0400, Matthias Clasen wrote:
> On Sat, Sep 11, 2010 at 7:58 PM, Havoc Pennington <hp pobox com> wrote:
> >
> > Anyhow: it would be a shame to ship the "ignore set size request
> > smaller than min size" by accident. Should I open a bug? Or should I
> > change (and document) set_size_request to "increase only"?
> Sounds good to me.

While on this topic, there's this XXX comment I left dangling
in gtksizegroup.c:

I was thinking maybe that for all the widgets in a group to be
effectively the same size, maybe we should be basing the minimum
base requests from the natural requests of all widgets in a group.

Currently a size group bumps up the minimum required size to
match the minimum size of all widgets in the group, the problem
with this is maybe some widgets will be allocated a bigger size
(while requiring the same minimum size); if they were to require
the natural size of the group as a minimum, they would more
effectively be allocated the same size (the problem with that
approach is that grouped widgets might be allocated a dramatically
large size unintentionally).

But if set_size_request() were to limit the natural size; combining
it with sizegroups that demand/require the natural size as a minimum
might work nicely.

Thoughts ?


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