When a css value has "child" css values (e.g. a linear gradient has
several color stop css values) which are all computed (won't change when
compute() is called on them), we want to skip computing the entire
subtree.
Since css values are immutable, we can set the is_computed flag at
construct time.
Since GtkCssValue instances are 0-initialized in _gtk_css_value_alloc,
the default for is_computed it FALSE. This commit only sets it to TRUE
in a few cases, such as various "none" singleton values which will never
change. Later commits will refine this and set it for more values.
This is just lots of renaming.
The interface remains private, so the public API does not change, apart
from removing the definition of the Interface object to avoid
subclassing.
We need to be able to compute different GtkCssImage values
depending on the scale, and we need this at compute time so that
we don't need to read any images other than the scale in used (to
e.g. calculate the image size). GtkStyleProviderPrivate is shared
for all style contexts, so its not right.
Here's the shortest description of the bug I can come up with:
When computing values, we have 3 kinds of dependencies:
(1) other properties ("currentColor" or em values)
(2) inherited properties ("inherit")
(3) generic things from the theme (@keyframes or @define-color)
Previously, we passed the GtkStyleContext as an argument, because it
provided these 3 things using:
(1) _gtk_style_context_peek_property()
(2) _gtk_style_context_peek_property(gtk_style_context_get_parent())
(3) context->priv->cascade
However, this makes it impossible to lookup values other than the ones
accessible via _gtk_style_context_peek_property(). And this is exactly
what we are doing in gtk_style_context_update_cache(). So when the cache
updates encountered case (1), they were looking up the values from the
wrong style data.
So this large patch essentially does nothing but replace the
context argument in all compute functions with new arguments for the 3
cases above:
(1) values
(2) parent_values
(3) provider
We apparently have a lot of computing code.
This is to allow animating arrays properly. I'm not really thrilled
about this solution (we leak propertys into the values again...), but
it's the best I can come up with - I prefer it to having N different
array types...
When values are computed, they might depend on various other values and
we need to track this so we can update the values when those other
values change. This is the first step in making that happen.
This patch does not do any dependency tracking at all, instead it uses
GTK_CSS_DEPENDS_ON_EVERYTHING as a sort of FIXME.
This is a reorganization of how value computing should be done.
Previously the GtkCssStyleProperty.compute vfunc was supposed to take
care of special cases when it needed those for computation. However,
this proved to be very complicated in cases where values were nested and
only the last value (of a common type) needed to be special cased.
A common example for this was the fallback handling for unresolvable
colors.
Now, we pass the property's ID along with all compute functions so we
can do the special casing where it's necessary.
Note that no actual changes happen in this commit. This will happen in
follow-ups.
This commit is essentially a large reorganization. Instead of all value
subtypes having their own compute function, there is the general
_gtk_css_value_compute() function that then calls a vfunc on the
subtype.
... and Make this new value be a real GValue, as we don't need to save
performance for these anymore (it's just used for custom properties).
And I'd rather have code work for all values then be optimized for no
reason.
Returns a value that transitions between start and end or %NULL if the
values cannot be transitioned.
So far, all implementations but numbers and rgba return NULL.
Note: custom CSS properties still use the default GtkCssValue and always
will.
So there is a difference in css values used between those, even though
they both carry a GdkRGBA payload.
For now, we return FALSE for all default css values, so this is not very
useful.
I also think of this as an optimization equal, not a guaranteed equal,
because we don't even have a notion of what "equal" means.
For example, for background-repeat, "repeat, repeat" and "repeat"
are functionally equivalent. But the cssvalue has no idea that it's used
for background-repeat.
As a more complicated example, "repeat, no-repeat" and "repeat" are
equal to what one sees as long as there's only one image listed
background-image-source. But once you start transition'ing to an image
with 2 sources, it's different...
