Send Gtkmm-forge mailing list submissions to
gtkmm-fo...@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-requ...@lists.sourceforge.net
You can reach the person managing the list at
gtkmm-forge-ow...@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-dae...@bugzilla.gnome.org>
Subject: [gtkmm bugzilla] [Bug 570648] Wrong Code in glibmm causes
build failtures for gtkmm and pangomm
To: gtkmm-fo...@lists.sourceforge.net
Message-ID: <20090206135033.d096223f...@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-dae...@bugzilla.gnome.org>
Subject: [gtkmm bugzilla] [Bug 570648] Wrong Code in glibmm causes
build failtures for gtkmm and pangomm
To: gtkmm-fo...@lists.sourceforge.net
Message-ID: <20090206163459.22c4923f...@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-dae...@bugzilla.gnome.org>
Subject: [gtkmm bugzilla] [Bug 570943] New: GtkEntry can't input when
toggling visibility twice
To: gtkmm-fo...@lists.sourceforge.net
Message-ID: <bug-570943-5...@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-fo...@lists.sourceforge.net
ReportedBy: anheihb03...@gmail.com
QAContact: gtkmm-fo...@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-dae...@bugzilla.gnome.org>
Subject: [gtkmm bugzilla] [Bug 511136] It's impossible to check if a
TreePath is valid using gtkmm functions
To: gtkmm-fo...@lists.sourceforge.net
Message-ID: <20090212030218.5b7ef23f...@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.ki...@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-dae...@bugzilla.gnome.org>
Subject: [gtkmm bugzilla] [Bug 511136] It's impossible to check if a
TreePath is valid using gtkmm functions
To: gtkmm-fo...@lists.sourceforge.net
Message-ID: <20090212030324.a9f9923f...@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.ki...@gmail.com
|fo...@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-dae...@bugzilla.gnome.org>
Subject: [gtkmm bugzilla] [Bug 511136] TreeView::get_cursor() may
return an invalid TreePath instance
To: gtkmm-fo...@lists.sourceforge.net
Message-ID: <20090212030553.9d91e23f...@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-dae...@bugzilla.gnome.org>
Subject: [gtkmm bugzilla] [Bug 511136] TreeView::get_cursor() may
return an invalid TreePath instance
To: gtkmm-fo...@lists.sourceforge.net
Message-ID: <20090212100021.f282323f...@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-dae...@bugzilla.gnome.org>
Subject: [gtkmm bugzilla] [Bug 511136] TreeView::get_cursor() may
return an invalid TreePath instance
To: gtkmm-fo...@lists.sourceforge.net
Message-ID: <20090212112926.7037423f...@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-fo...@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/gtkmm-forge
End of Gtkmm-forge Digest, Vol 33, Issue 7
******************************************
_______________________________________________
gtkmm-list mailing list
gtkmm-list@gnome.org
http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gtkmm-list
