It feels slightly wrong to have GtkOrientable operate on widgets, but at
least what happens when an orientable widget changes orientation should
be part of GtkWidget.
This will allow to add more state changes without accessing widget state
from the outside of gtkwidget.c.
This was only living in gtkcontainer.c for historic
reasons. Move it closer to where it belongs, and
rename it from 'idle' to 'layout', since it is
really about the layout phase of the frame clock,
nowadays.
Getting the layout manager instance out of GtkGrid, and then querying
all layout properties can be tedious, especially for code that was
usually calling gtk_container_child_get().
To replace that, we can add a simple query function that returns the two
attach points and the spans.
Issue #1495 showed that the docs of GtkGrid retain outdated implications
that (as was once, but is no longer, the case) it is intended to replace
GtkBox, by discussing HfW and widget properties in a way that suggests
GtkBox can't handle them. But of course it does, and it's preferable for
simple single-row/column cases. Worse, we said GtkGrid “provides exactly
the same functionality” for the latter case, but the original point of
that Issues was that it doesn’t, at least for CSS positional selectors!
Box:
• Use an actually meaningful @Short_description.
• Remove unhelpful @See_also references to unrelated containers.
• Remove references to “rectangular area”: it might be another shape
via CSS, or “rectangular” might falsely imply 2 dimensions of children.
• Mention Orientable:orientation.
• Emphasise usefulness of :[hv]align for allocating in the other axis.
• Don’t say that Grid “provides exactly the same functionality” for a
single row or column, since (A) it is overkill for that case and (B)
said Issue proved that it *doesn’t* for CSS child order, for example.
Grid:
• Don’t dwell on widget properties and height-for-width in a way that
wrongly implies that Box can’t handle those (or Grid can better). In
fact, just get rid of that bit altogether: Box handles them fine, and
such wording was only needed years ago for migration from GTK+ 2 to 3.
• Point to GtkBox as being preferred for the simple row/column use case.
This is an automated change doing these command:
git sed -f g gtk_widget_set_has_window gtk_widget_set_has_surface
git sed -f g gtk_widget_get_has_window gtk_widget_get_has_surface
git sed -f g gtk_widget_set_parent_window gtk_widget_set_parent_surface
git sed -f g gtk_widget_get_parent_window gtk_widget_get_parent_surface
git sed -f g gtk_widget_set_window gtk_widget_set_surface
git sed -f g gtk_widget_get_window gtk_widget_get_surface
git sed -f g gtk_widget_register_window gtk_widget_register_surface
git sed -f g gtk_widget_unregister_window gtk_widget_unregister_surface
git checkout NEWS*
Save the child info using g_object_set_qdata and just use the widget's
built-in child list for everthing else. This is especially simple for
GtkGrid since it has never supported reordering its child widgets.
Remove all the old 2.x and 3.x version annotations.
GTK+ 4 is a new start, and from the perspective of a
GTK+ 4 developer all these APIs have been around since
the beginning.
This patch makes that work using 1 of 2 options:
1. Add all missing enums to the switch statement
or
2. Cast the switch argument to a uint to avoid having to do that (mostly
for GdkEventType).
I even found a bug while doing that: clearing a GtkImage with a surface
did not notify thae surface property.
The reason for enabling this flag even though it is tedious at times is
that it is very useful when adding values to an enum, because it makes
GTK immediately warn about all the switch statements where this enum is
relevant.
And I expect changes to enums to be frequent during the GTK4 development
cycle.
Since gtk+ draws more than the widget and allocates more size to it than
it knows about, this flag doesn't work anymore. Removing it (or setting
it to TRUE for widgets that used to set it to FALSE) fixes drawing
invalidation when these widgets get allocated a new size.
Since setting a clip is mandatory for almost all widgets, we can as well
change the size-allocate signature to include a out_clip parameter, just
like GtkCssGadget did. And since we now always propagate baselines, we
might as well pass that one on to size-allocate.
This way we can also make sure to transform the clip returned from
size-allocate to parent-coordinates, i.e. the same coordinate space
priv->allocation is in.
always initialize clips to the (content) allocation, don't walk up the
widget hierarchy in gtk_widget_set_clip, implement
gtk_widget_size_allocate in GtkSeparator. This way we don't end up using
uninitialized clip values.
The entire clip handling is up for major rework since we can't and don't
want to force every single widget to call _set_clip in size-allocate
implementations.
Turns out that the destination is the last parameter, not the first one.
This fixes the flickering in the first page of the widget-factory when
using the expander on page 2.
Add a new ::measure vfunc similar to GtkCssGadget's that widget
implementations have to override instead of the old get_preferred_width,
get_preferred_height, get_preferred_width_for_height,
get_preferred_height_for_width and
get_preferred_height_and_baseline_for_width.
