Code was using different places to compute the icon size when layouting
and when doing size requests. This resulted in non-matching behavior in
obscure cases. And that lead to iconviews that were too small.
This makes sure that if the gtk-im-module setting changes we update
our internal state immediately on the next event whichever it is.
In particular this fixes the case of the gtk-im-module setting
changing while the user is typing and the slave context remaining the
same, effectively ignoring the setting change.
https://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=675365
Commit cdf473ec10 deprecated the style
properties associated with the container border width and box spacing of
the action and content areas, in favour of using
gtk_container_set_border_width() and gtk_box_set_spacing() on the
widgets themselves, but failed to initialize those values to the
defaults.
Makes name consistent with other quartz-only modules and makes it clear that this works with the GMenuModel system rather than the older GtkMenu system.
The window's role is 'GtkFileChooserDialog', so that window managers can match it
for positioning.
Signed-off-by: Federico Mena Quintero <federico@gnome.org>
Instead, always use PKG_CHECK_MODULES(). That macro actually gets it
right. In particular the erroring out part when you miss xkbcommon or
wayland-client.
This ensures that items stay left-aligned instead of slowly expanding into
empty space when widening the iconview. It's also what the iconview did
pre-refactoring.
Note that for cases where natural width != minimum width, the cells
might still expand and shrink back.
Always assume max-columns and min-rows. The old approach was kinda
insane.
As an example, try to write an algorithm that optimizes the minimum size
for infinite (take a reasonably large number like 2520) word-wrapped
Monospace text cells containing the text "XXXXX XXX XXX XXXXX" (keep in
mind that this is the easy problem, because it's assuming equal cell
renderers). There's 4 ways to reasonably lay out this text:
19 glyphs (19x1):
XXXXX XXX XXX XXXXX
18 glyphs (9x2):
XXXXX XXX
XXX XXXXX
21 glyphs (7x3):
XXXXX
XXX XXX
XXXXX
20 glyphs (5x4):
XXXXX
XXX
XXX
XXXXX
The best thing to do usually is using the 9x2 approach, but that's
neither the one using the natural nor the one using the minimum size.
As a side note, this does not include spacing and padding, which might
also influence the decision. Nor does it include height-for-width
considerations. Look at this table (numbers given in glyphs, not pixels,
as for pixel-sizes it gets even more interesting):
given best solution
width columns sizing glyphs per cell
6 1 6x4 20
7 1 7x3 21
8 1 7x3 24
9 1 9x2 18
10 1/2 9x2/5x4 20
11 1/2 9x2/5x4 22
12 1/2 9x2/5x4 24
13 1/2 9x2/5x4 26
14 2 7x3 21
15 3 5x4 20
16 3 5x4 21.3
17 3 5x4 22.7
18 2 9x2 18
19 1/2 19x1/8x2 19
20 1/2/4 19x1/8x2/5x4 20
21 1-4 any 21
22 1-4 any 22
23 1-4 any 23
24 1-4 any 24
25 5 5x4 20
26 5 5x4 20.8
27 3 9x2 18
28 3 9x2 18.7
29 3 9x2 19.3
30 3/6 9x2/5x4 20
Now of course, nobody wants the number of columns to randomly change in
inexplicable ways while they enlarge or shrink an iconview, so we not
only have to optimize for smallest or other size measurements, but we
also have to optimize for "most pleasing to the eye".
And last but not least, I'd like to once again remind you - if you kept
up until now - that this discussion was for identically-sized cells
only.
Instead of just returning the last allocated numbers, we now compute the
proper sizes from scratch. This is a bit less trivial, but it results in
proper height-for-width handling.
This is a huge quest to remove all caching from GtkIconview to simplify
the code. As it turns out, iconview performance is a joke, so the caches
are kinda unnecessary.
If we need caching, we can add it in a useful way later.
If we use
&item->cell_area
instead of
(GdkRectangle *) item
there is no need anymore to keep the cell_area as the first member of
the the item. And we cget compile-time checks for changes to the item
struct.
It's wrong to hardcode the slider lines here; those should be rendered
as an additional background layer using background-image if the theme
specifies so.
https://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=652304
Instead of setting it on the child scrolled window. This is needed
because the whole window's allocation must be equal to the one of the
entry (in case the popup-set-width property is TRUE); if we set the size
request on a children of the window, there might be other children with
borders/paddings in between the toplevel and the child we set the size
request too, which will break alignment.
https://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=672947
GDK_EVENT_2BUTTON_PRESS and GDK_EVENT_3BUTTON_PRESS can't be used from
some bindings because they'd translate to something syntactically
invalid. Add GDK_EVENT_DOUBLE_BUTTON_PRESS and
GDK_EVENT_TRIPLE_BUTTON_PRESS aliases to work around that.
https://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=671025
This call was forcing needless work since gtk_window_map() already
does a gdk_window_show() which initially sets GDK_WINDOW_STATE_FOCUSED
that we then handle regularly on the widget's window state event
handler.
https://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=673237
Since themes might want different paddings around the color sample
according to where it's being used, don't hardcode a 16px one here.
The theme can specify a padding to get the same effect.
Reported by Christian Persch <chpe@gnome.org>
