They're either wrong (when using FALSE because the widgets don't account
for changes to the CSS) or unnecessary (when using TRUE because it's the
default).
Fixes!1777
Issue #1495 showed that the docs of GtkGrid retain outdated implications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.
• Note in the child properties that are remove in master that we have
better, preferred alternatives available now in GtkWidget/CSS props.
There’s no nice way to deprecate these, though they’re gone in GTK+ 4.
• Correct a copy-paste-o from the blurb of :expand to :fill.
Grid:
• Remove references to deprecated widgets: GtkTable and Gtk[HV]Box.
• 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
Table is so old as to be not worth mentioning (in anything except the
2 => 3 migration guide) and points to Grid in its deprecation notice.
• Point to GtkBox as being preferred for the simple row/column use case.
If there are rows that contain only spanning children,
our algorithm was unnecessarily distributing extra space
to the other rows, even if they contain only non-expanding
children.
We improve the behaviour by treating rows containing only
spanning children as expanding.
When a homogeneous grid has no visible children, we were
accidentally doing a division by zero. Instead, just bail
out early in this case, there is nothing to allocate anyway.
https://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=672763
When doing homogeneous allocation in the presence of
overlapping spanning children, we need to avoid uneven
line allocations, otherwise, the final homogenization
will blow up the size request of the grid.
https://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=671170
row-spacing behaved like column-spacing should have and vice versa.
Also update tests that erroneously checked this behavior.
Thanks to Joanmarie Diggs for finding this.
We need pay attention the the request mode when doing size allocation.
The code was using request mode for requisition, but orientation
for allocation.
Also add a reftest that exhibits the issue, courtesy of
Benjamin Otte.
