Changing the oriantation of a toolbar

Got an idea for enhancing PureBasic? New command(s) you'd like to see?
walker
Enthusiast
Enthusiast
Posts: 634
Joined: Wed May 05, 2004 4:04 pm
Location: Germany

Changing the oriantation of a toolbar

Post by walker »

Why is ist impossible to create a vertical toolbar? it seems that the toolbar PB create has some fixed parameters that cant' be changed by a gtk_xxx command?

Code: Select all

gtk_toolbar_set_orientation_(*toolbar1,#GTK_ORIENTATION_VERTICAL)
should work.... but the result is a little weired... if adding

Code: Select all

gtk_toolbar_set_show_arrow_(*toolbar1,#False)
the entrys are shown.... but over all not as desired :roll:

the lib used to create a toolbar is located here: http://www.purebasic.fr/english/viewtopic.php?t=25882
The source for creating the Toolbar (part of the library):

Code: Select all

ProcedureCDLL CreateTB(tbar.l, *Hwnd.l, type.l, orientation.l); Creates a toolbar - Type can be #GTK_TOOLBAR_TEXT/#GTK_TOOLBAR_BOTH/#GTK_TOOLBAR_ICONS
; type: #GTK_TOOLBAR_TEXT to show text only and  #GTK_TOOLBAR_BOTH for both, text and Icon 
;         #GTK_TOOLBAR_ICONS for icons only
 TBSTYLE.l=type
*tooltips = gtk_tooltips_new_()
   *toolbar1=CreateToolBar(tbar,*Hwnd)
    gtk_widget_show_(*toolbar1);
    gtk_toolbar_set_style_(*toolbar1, TBSTYLE);
If orientation=1
    gtk_toolbar_set_orientation_(*toolbar1,#GTK_ORIENTATION_VERTICAL)
 EndIf  

If *toolbar1
    ProcedureReturn *toolbar1
Else
    ProcedureReturn 0
EndIf    
EndProcedure
[Edit]
if I use

Code: Select all

gtk_widget_set_size_request_(*toolbar1,100,400)
only the height parameter is used... the width is ignored.... :(

[/Edit]
Fred
Administrator
Administrator
Posts: 18162
Joined: Fri May 17, 2002 4:39 pm
Location: France
Contact:

Post by Fred »

This kind of manipulations of PB objects can't be considered as bugs, as you never know how it is implemented (or if it will be future proof).
walker
Enthusiast
Enthusiast
Posts: 634
Joined: Wed May 05, 2004 4:04 pm
Location: Germany

Post by walker »

well... thats why I'd asked it as question.... (ok the wrong section... my apologies for this) So i guess it's not possible because of your implementation...hm... is there a chance to get it changed (the implementation) to get it working? (it's not a must have... but would be nice... and could this thread be moved to feature requests?)
Post Reply