GNOME.org
 

Gtkmm-forge Digest, Vol 33, Issue 7

Send Gtkmm-forge mailing list submissions to
	gtkmm-forge lists sourceforge net

To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
	https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/gtkmm-forge
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
	gtkmm-forge-request lists sourceforge net

You can reach the person managing the list at
	gtkmm-forge-owner lists sourceforge net

When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than "Re: Contents of Gtkmm-forge digest..."


gtkmm-forge is the mailing list that receives gtkmm bug reports from bugzilla.  A daily digest is sent to gtkmm-main, to encourage people to help fixing the bugs. Do not try to unsubscribe gtkmm-forge from gtkmm-list.


Today's Topics:

   1. [Bug 570648] Wrong Code in glibmm causes build	failtures for
      gtkmm and pangomm (glibmm (bugzilla.gnome.org))
   2. [Bug 570648] Wrong Code in glibmm causes build	failtures for
      gtkmm and pangomm (glibmm (bugzilla.gnome.org))
   3. [Bug 570943] New: GtkEntry can't input when	toggling
      visibility twice (gtkmm (bugzilla.gnome.org))
   4. [Bug 511136] It's impossible to check if a	TreePath is valid
      using gtkmm functions (gtkmm (bugzilla.gnome.org))
   5. [Bug 511136] It's impossible to check if a	TreePath is valid
      using gtkmm functions (gtkmm (bugzilla.gnome.org))
   6. [Bug 511136] TreeView::get_cursor() may return an	invalid
      TreePath instance (gtkmm (bugzilla.gnome.org))
   7. [Bug 511136] TreeView::get_cursor() may return an	invalid
      TreePath instance (gtkmm (bugzilla.gnome.org))
   8. [Bug 511136] TreeView::get_cursor() may return an	invalid
      TreePath instance (gtkmm (bugzilla.gnome.org))


----------------------------------------------------------------------

Message: 1
Date: Fri,  6 Feb 2009 13:50:33 +0000 (UTC)
From: "glibmm (bugzilla.gnome.org)"
	<bugzilla-daemon bugzilla gnome org>
Subject: [gtkmm bugzilla] [Bug 570648] Wrong Code in glibmm causes
	build	failtures for gtkmm and pangomm
To: gtkmm-forge lists sourceforge net
Message-ID: <20090206135033 D096223F51E label gnome org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8

If you have any questions why you received this email, please see the text at
the end of this email. Replies to this email are NOT read, please see the text
at the end of this email. You can add comments to this bug at:
  http://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=570648

  glibmm | build | Ver: 2.18.x

Murray Cumming changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Status|UNCONFIRMED                 |RESOLVED
         Resolution|                            |INVALID




------- Comment #7 from Murray Cumming  2009-02-06 13:50 UTC -------
The api configure options are on glibmm.

Yes, there doesn't seem to be a real problem here, though it was nice that you
caught an error in glibmm.

I'm guessing this was on LFS or gentoo or suchlike, right?


-- 
See http://bugzilla.gnome.org/page.cgi?id=email.html for more info about why you received
this email, why you can't respond via email, how to stop receiving
emails (or reduce the number you receive), and how to contact someone
if you are having problems with the system.

You can add comments to this bug at http://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=570648.



------------------------------

Message: 2
Date: Fri,  6 Feb 2009 16:34:59 +0000 (UTC)
From: "glibmm (bugzilla.gnome.org)"
	<bugzilla-daemon bugzilla gnome org>
Subject: [gtkmm bugzilla] [Bug 570648] Wrong Code in glibmm causes
	build	failtures for gtkmm and pangomm
To: gtkmm-forge lists sourceforge net
Message-ID: <20090206163459 22C4923F51E label gnome org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8

If you have any questions why you received this email, please see the text at
the end of this email. Replies to this email are NOT read, please see the text
at the end of this email. You can add comments to this bug at:
  http://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=570648

  glibmm | build | Ver: 2.18.x




------- Comment #8 from Bernd Buschinski  2009-02-06 16:34 UTC -------
Yeah Gentoo, but rather my fault then gentoos :)


-- 
See http://bugzilla.gnome.org/page.cgi?id=email.html for more info about why you received
this email, why you can't respond via email, how to stop receiving
emails (or reduce the number you receive), and how to contact someone
if you are having problems with the system.

You can add comments to this bug at http://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=570648.



------------------------------

Message: 3
Date: Sun,  8 Feb 2009 10:40:54 +0000 (UTC)
From: "gtkmm (bugzilla.gnome.org)"
	<bugzilla-daemon bugzilla gnome org>
Subject: [gtkmm bugzilla] [Bug 570943] New: GtkEntry can't input when
	toggling visibility twice
To: gtkmm-forge lists sourceforge net
Message-ID: <bug-570943-5595 http bugzilla gnome org/>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8

If you have any questions why you received this email, please see the text at
the end of this email. Replies to this email are NOT read, please see the text
at the end of this email. You can add comments to this bug at:
  http://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=570943

  gtkmm | general | Ver: 2.4
           Summary: GtkEntry can't input when toggling visibility twice
           Product: gtkmm
           Version: 2.4
          Platform: Other
        OS/Version: All
            Status: UNCONFIRMED
          Severity: minor
          Priority: Normal
         Component: general
        AssignedTo: gtkmm-forge lists sourceforge net
        ReportedBy: anheihb03dlj gmail com
         QAContact: gtkmm-forge lists sourceforge net
     GNOME version: Unspecified
   GNOME milestone: Unspecified


Please describe the problem:
i have downloaded the gtkmm-2.4 example source. In the
"gtkmm-2-4-docs\examples\book\entry\simple" sample,compile it and run,
when i toggled the "Visible" check button twice ( set_visibility(false) ->
set_visibility(true) ), the entry can't input!

Steps to reproduce:
1. compile and run the "gtkmm-2-4-docs\examples\book\entry\simple" sample
2. toggle the "Visible" check button twice
3. 

Actual results:
the entry can't input


Expected results:
the entry can input

Does this happen every time?
always

Other information:
i have tested the sample with gtkmm-2.4 using mingw32 compiler in windows
platform , and using gtk+2.0 has the same result.
Then i tested it in Ubuntu 8.10 ,the entry still can't input.


-- 
See http://bugzilla.gnome.org/page.cgi?id=email.html for more info about why you received
this email, why you can't respond via email, how to stop receiving
emails (or reduce the number you receive), and how to contact someone
if you are having problems with the system.

You can add comments to this bug at http://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=570943.



------------------------------

Message: 4
Date: Thu, 12 Feb 2009 03:02:18 +0000 (UTC)
From: "gtkmm (bugzilla.gnome.org)"
	<bugzilla-daemon bugzilla gnome org>
Subject: [gtkmm bugzilla] [Bug 511136] It's impossible to check if a
	TreePath is valid using gtkmm functions
To: gtkmm-forge lists sourceforge net
Message-ID: <20090212030218 5B7EF23F519 label gnome org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8

If you have any questions why you received this email, please see the text at
the end of this email. Replies to this email are NOT read, please see the text
at the end of this email. You can add comments to this bug at:
  http://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=511136

  gtkmm | TreeView | Ver: 2.12.x

Daniel Elstner changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 CC|                            |daniel kitta gmail com
             Status|RESOLVED                    |UNCONFIRMED
         Resolution|FIXED                       |




------- Comment #6 from Daniel Elstner  2009-02-12 03:01 UTC -------
I think this change is broken and a bad idea. It makes no sense to make empty()
work on a TreePath which is essentially in a state it should never have got
into in the first place. The remainder of the TreePath methods would still fail
anyway.

The correct fix is to change get_cursor() to treat the NULL case specially,
just as we already do for many string return values.

On a side note, I don't think it is a good idea to add operator bool() to
classes all over the place. It will make any instance implicitly convertible to
integer type.


-- 
See http://bugzilla.gnome.org/page.cgi?id=email.html for more info about why you received
this email, why you can't respond via email, how to stop receiving
emails (or reduce the number you receive), and how to contact someone
if you are having problems with the system.

You can add comments to this bug at http://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=511136.



------------------------------

Message: 5
Date: Thu, 12 Feb 2009 03:03:24 +0000 (UTC)
From: "gtkmm (bugzilla.gnome.org)"
	<bugzilla-daemon bugzilla gnome org>
Subject: [gtkmm bugzilla] [Bug 511136] It's impossible to check if a
	TreePath is valid using gtkmm functions
To: gtkmm-forge lists sourceforge net
Message-ID: <20090212030324 A9F9923F51F label gnome org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8

If you have any questions why you received this email, please see the text at
the end of this email. Replies to this email are NOT read, please see the text
at the end of this email. You can add comments to this bug at:
  http://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=511136

  gtkmm | TreeView | Ver: 2.12.x

Daniel Elstner changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
         AssignedTo|gtkmm-                      |daniel kitta gmail com
                   |forge lists sourceforge net |
             Status|UNCONFIRMED                 |NEW
     Ever Confirmed|0                           |1
           Keywords|usability                   |




-- 
See http://bugzilla.gnome.org/page.cgi?id=email.html for more info about why you received
this email, why you can't respond via email, how to stop receiving
emails (or reduce the number you receive), and how to contact someone
if you are having problems with the system.

You can add comments to this bug at http://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=511136.



------------------------------

Message: 6
Date: Thu, 12 Feb 2009 03:05:53 +0000 (UTC)
From: "gtkmm (bugzilla.gnome.org)"
	<bugzilla-daemon bugzilla gnome org>
Subject: [gtkmm bugzilla] [Bug 511136] TreeView::get_cursor() may
	return an	invalid TreePath instance
To: gtkmm-forge lists sourceforge net
Message-ID: <20090212030553 9D91E23F51F label gnome org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8

If you have any questions why you received this email, please see the text at
the end of this email. Replies to this email are NOT read, please see the text
at the end of this email. You can add comments to this bug at:
  http://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=511136

  gtkmm | TreeView | Ver: 2.12.x

Daniel Elstner changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
            Summary|It's impossible to check if |TreeView::get_cursor() may
                   |a TreePath is valid using   |return an invalid TreePath
                   |gtkmm functions             |instance




-- 
See http://bugzilla.gnome.org/page.cgi?id=email.html for more info about why you received
this email, why you can't respond via email, how to stop receiving
emails (or reduce the number you receive), and how to contact someone
if you are having problems with the system.

You can add comments to this bug at http://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=511136.



------------------------------

Message: 7
Date: Thu, 12 Feb 2009 10:00:21 +0000 (UTC)
From: "gtkmm (bugzilla.gnome.org)"
	<bugzilla-daemon bugzilla gnome org>
Subject: [gtkmm bugzilla] [Bug 511136] TreeView::get_cursor() may
	return an	invalid TreePath instance
To: gtkmm-forge lists sourceforge net
Message-ID: <20090212100021 F282323F51E label gnome org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8

If you have any questions why you received this email, please see the text at
the end of this email. Replies to this email are NOT read, please see the text
at the end of this email. You can add comments to this bug at:
  http://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=511136

  gtkmm | TreeView | Ver: 2.12.x




------- Comment #7 from Murray Cumming  2009-02-12 10:00 UTC -------
(In reply to comment #6)
> I think this change is broken and a bad idea. It makes no sense to make empty()
> work on a TreePath which is essentially in a state it should never have got
> into in the first place.

It's debatable whether it should be in that state. 

> The remainder of the TreePath methods would still fail
> anyway.

But checking with operator bool can avoid that.

We use the same technique elsewhere already, at least in pangomm, I think.

> The correct fix is to change get_cursor() to treat the NULL case specially,
> just as we already do for many string return values.

But we can't be sure that we won't get a NULL GtkTreePath* from someplace else,
so I'd like to keep this operator bool. I'm fine with you also adding a
get_cursor() method overload with a bool& parameter, assuming that's what you
mean.


-- 
See http://bugzilla.gnome.org/page.cgi?id=email.html for more info about why you received
this email, why you can't respond via email, how to stop receiving
emails (or reduce the number you receive), and how to contact someone
if you are having problems with the system.

You can add comments to this bug at http://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=511136.



------------------------------

Message: 8
Date: Thu, 12 Feb 2009 11:29:26 +0000 (UTC)
From: "gtkmm (bugzilla.gnome.org)"
	<bugzilla-daemon bugzilla gnome org>
Subject: [gtkmm bugzilla] [Bug 511136] TreeView::get_cursor() may
	return an	invalid TreePath instance
To: gtkmm-forge lists sourceforge net
Message-ID: <20090212112926 7037423F539 label gnome org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8

If you have any questions why you received this email, please see the text at
the end of this email. Replies to this email are NOT read, please see the text
at the end of this email. You can add comments to this bug at:
  http://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=511136

  gtkmm | TreeView | Ver: 2.12.x




------- Comment #8 from Daniel Elstner  2009-02-12 11:29 UTC -------
(In reply to comment #7)

> > work on a TreePath which is essentially in a state it should never have got
> > into in the first place.
> 
> It's debatable whether it should be in that state.

TreePath does not, in any way, represent a pointer or pointer-like data
structure. It isn't a handle. The interface is that of an STL container. Also,
there is no need to make a distinction between an invalid TreePath and an empty
one.

> 
> > The remainder of the TreePath methods would still fail
> > anyway.
> 
> But checking with operator bool can avoid that.

So we end up with two ways to represent an empty TreePath. One is actually
empty but valid, the other isn't a valid TreePath at all. As far as empty() is
concerned, they are now the same thing. But they suddenly aren't the same thing
anymore if you use some other method on it.  Why make empty() work, but not
size() == 0, or begin() == end(), or...

In other words: If the intent is to represent the state "no cursor position" as
an empty TreePath, then why not actually make it an empty TreePath? Why invent
an additional state "in limbo"?

The case with nstring in gtkmm 1.2 was much less clear-cut, and we still got
rid of it.

> We use the same technique elsewhere already, at least in pangomm, I think.

I hope these usages actually introduce a distinct state, and not just an
alternative internal representation for one and the same logical state.

> > The correct fix is to change get_cursor() to treat the NULL case specially,
> > just as we already do for many string return values.
> 
> But we can't be sure that we won't get a NULL GtkTreePath* from someplace else, so I'd like to keep this operator bool.

If operator bool() weren't identical to empty() but would actually indicate a
distinct state, it would be acceptable.  That is, it would be acceptable if we
actually needed to somehow represent a state distinct from an empty path. But
we don't, as far as I'm aware.

> I'm fine with you also adding a
> get_cursor() method overload with a bool& parameter, assuming that's what you
> mean.

Eeek, no. Output parameters are a horrible last resort. And having such an
overload *in addition* to some other means to represent that state is just
ugly.


-- 
See http://bugzilla.gnome.org/page.cgi?id=email.html for more info about why you received
this email, why you can't respond via email, how to stop receiving
emails (or reduce the number you receive), and how to contact someone
if you are having problems with the system.

You can add comments to this bug at http://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=511136.



------------------------------

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Create and Deploy Rich Internet Apps outside the browser with Adobe(R)AIR(TM)
software. With Adobe AIR, Ajax developers can use existing skills and code to
build responsive, highly engaging applications that combine the power of local
resources and data with the reach of the web. Download the Adobe AIR SDK and
Ajax docs to start building applications today-http://p.sf.net/sfu/adobe-com

------------------------------

_______________________________________________
Gtkmm-forge mailing list
Gtkmm-forge lists sourceforge net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/gtkmm-forge


End of Gtkmm-forge Digest, Vol 33, Issue 7
******************************************
[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]