Re: [gtk-list] hiding things and resizing...
- From: Owen Taylor <owt1 cornell edu>
- To: Tim Janik <timj gimp org>
- cc: Owen Taylor <owt1 cornell edu>, alaric mail2 nai net, Gtk+ MList <gtk-list redhat com>
- Subject: Re: [gtk-list] hiding things and resizing...
- Date: Fri, 27 Feb 1998 11:52:33 -0500
> > Me again... *smirk* smack me if I get too loud ;)
> >
> > Same application, I want a portion of the window (some option buttons) to
> > be shown only when the user wants them. Using widget_hide() works just
> > fine, except that I don't want the widgets left in the window resizing to
> > fit the window. What I want is for the window to resize to fit the
> > widgets. (unhiding the options does re-inflate the window, the window
> > just doesn't auto-deflate)
I think what what is wanted is:
void
gtk_window_set_policy (GtkWindow *window,
gint allow_shrink,
gint allow_grow,
gint auto_shrink)
If you set auto_shrink to TRUE, it should do what you want.
> i would suggest something like an extra NO_WINDOW container
> (e.g. GtkSpaceBox ;) that will always request the size of its child, no
> matter whether it is visible or not.
> hm, come too think about it i belive i could hack that up pretty quick,
> it should be a pretty small container derived from GtkBin that needs to
> overload the size_request, size_allocate, map, unmap and expose handlers...
> what do people think?
>
> [owen, what leeman asks for is the current (visible!) behaviour if you force
> unrealize a widget. (which would be bad since currently gtk_widget_unrealize
> leaves GTK_MAPPED set on a widget that doesn't have a window anymore.)
> do we have any possibility to prevent (preserve??) this visible behaviour,
> without enforcing the invariants on gtk_widget_unrealize (which in turn
> would change its behaviour)?]
I don't see too much point in having that behavior. (Making widgets
disappear without changing the allocation).
Depending on what you are looking for, doing
gtk_container_block_resize() on the parent in conjuction with
gtk_window_hide might work anyways.
But I don't think that was what was being asked for.
I'd rather leave unrealize() as a internal call, than hijack
it to get a particular (uncommmon) visual effect.
Regards,
Owen
[
Date Prev][
Date Next] [
Thread Prev][
Thread Next]
[
Thread Index]
[
Date Index]
[
Author Index]