Re: GtkEntry is a little annoying...
- From: Owen Taylor <otaylor redhat com>
- To: Antonio Campos <acampos ceronet com>
- Cc: "gtk-list redhat com" <gtk-list redhat com>
- Subject: Re: GtkEntry is a little annoying...
- Date: 20 Dec 1999 08:19:07 -0500
Antonio Campos <acampos@ceronet.com> writes:
> Point of criticism 1: (soft criticism :-))
> Has anybody noticed that when you're entering text at the end of a
> GtkEntry, the cursor dissapears, so you can't see where you are typing
> nor what you are writing until you newly move to the end of the entry?
Yes, that's a bug (looks like small miscalculation in figuring out the
scroll offsets.) Please file a bug on the bug tracker. (See
the README file in GTK+.)
> Point of criticism 2:
> The GtkEntry responds to keys like END, Arrow Keys, Home, Ctrl+Arrow
> left, ..., but doesn't respond to the Numerical Arrows, etc ... (Yes, I
> have Num Block disabled. :-)). Is this something related to
> X (Xmodmap? or something) or to GTK?. Note that KDE entries does respond
> to Numerical Arrows.
Well, its probably a bug. Actually, what you'll find is that the
numeric arrow keys always control focus movement, even when the normal
arrow keys control cursor motion. Which could conceivably be considered
a feature, but wasn't meant to be one as far as I know.
> Point of criticism 3:
> In Spain we use the symbols: ñ, Ñ, ü, á, and others. The following is an
> example of text I can write inside an entry:
> "La cigüeña está ñoña."
> Everything OK. Now suppose I have the cursor over the "o" in "ñoña", and
> I double click to select the word "ñoña" (is a word in spanish :-)).
> Then only the "o" is selected, because for GtkEntry the strange symbols
> "ñ"'s doesn't form part of a word. Strange behaviour this is.
> I know this have something to do with i18n, but I don't exactly know
> what.
GTK+ believes what the C library tells it - it just uses isalnum() to
tell if a character is part of a word or not. The C library believes
what you tell it.
Try:
LC_CTYPE=es_ES some-gtk-program
I think you'll find that the entry works correctly - it does for me
anyways.
Regards,
Owen
[
Date Prev][
Date Next] [
Thread Prev][
Thread Next]
[
Thread Index]
[
Date Index]
[
Author Index]