[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: 25+2 packages with (Glade) generated C source files without the source

On Sun, Aug 31, 2008 at 09:12:34AM +0200, Josselin Mouette wrote:
> I’m pretty sure many of the list are in similar cases. Now loading the
> UI directly into the application is the standard, but not so long ago
> people generated template code with glade and then edited it by hand.
> The .glade file was removed simply because it has become irrelevant.

Ok, my bad then. I admit I'm not too familiar with glade, although I
did know that the newest glade does not generate source code (but what
argument is that, this code was obviously generated with glade, the
existence of the newer version wouldn't magically make this the
preferred form of modification, would it!?).

Although I do wonder, since this seems to mean that the interfaces are
(or at least seem to me) quite immutable. For example, take a look at


which is from the package lopster.

It has a number of functions like create_window() and
create_options_win() which still at least look quite repulsive for any
attempts to make any real or substantive edits to the interface.

For example, the variable declarations in those functions:
create_window() has 541 local variables named like pixmap57, hbox419,
label547, hseparator49, frame 384. create_options_win() has 496. The
code (4710 lines in case of create_window()) doesn't look much more
editable either.

But I do trust you when you say that the "do not edit" note is
obsolete, I just wonder since after a cursory inspection this code
definitely doesn't look like anything I would want to touch to edit a
complex UI :) Of course if they are edited anyway, that might make
them the preferred form of modification.

Thanks for clarifying that, anyway, and sorry for the noise.


Reply to: