Search Results

Search found 12067 results on 483 pages for 'cascading style sheets'.

Page 27/483 | < Previous Page | 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34  | Next Page >

  • Origins of code indentation

    - by Daniel Mahler
    I am interested in finding out who introduced code indentation, as well as when and where it was introduced. It seems so critical to code comprehension, but it was not universal. Most Fortran and Basic code was (is?) unindented, and the same goes for Cobol. I am pretty sure I have even seen old Lisp code written as continuous, line-wrapped text. You had to count brackets in your head just to parse it, never mind understanding it. So where did such a huge improvement come from? I have never seen any mention of its origin. Apart from original examples of its use, I am also looking for original discussions of indentation.

    Read the article

  • Best practice in setting return value (use else or?)

    - by Deckard
    Whenever you want to return a value from a method, but whatever you return depends on some other value, you typically use branching: int calculateSomething() { if (a == b) { return x; } else { return y; } } Another way to write this is: int calculateSomething() { if (a == b) { return x; } return y; } Is there any reason to avoid one or the other? Both allow adding "else if"-clauses without problems. Both typically generate compiler errors if you add anything at the bottom. Note: I couldn't find any duplicates, although multiple questions exist about whether the accompanying curly braces should be on their own line. So let's not get into that.

    Read the article

  • What is the ideal length of a method?

    - by iPhoneDeveloper
    In object-oriented programming, there is no exact rule on the maximum length of a method , but I still found these two qutes somewhat contradicting each other, so I would like to hear what you think. In Clean Code: A Handbook of Agile Software Craftsmanship, Robert Martin says: The first rule of functions is that they should be small. The second rule of functions is that they should be smaller than that. Functions should not be 100 lines long. Functions should hardly ever be 20 lines long. and he gives an example from Java code he sees from Kent Beck: Every function in his program was just two, or three, or four lines long. Each was transparently obvious. Each told a story. And each led you to the next in a compelling order. That’s how short your functions should be! This sounds great, but on the other hand, in Code Complete, Steve McConnell says something very different: The routine should be allowed to grow organically up to 100-200 lines, decades of evidence say that routines of such length no more error prone then shorter routines. And he gives a reference to a study that says routines 65 lines or long are cheaper to develop. So while there are diverging opinions about the matter, is there a functional best-practice towards determining the ideal length of a method for you?

    Read the article

  • How to use correctly the comments in C/++

    - by Lucio
    I'm learning to program in C and in my stage, the best form to use correctly the comments is writing good comments from the beginning. As the comments are not just for that one understands better the code but others too, I want to know the views of all of you to reach a consensus. So what I want is that the most experienced users edit the following code as you please. (If it's unnecessary, delete it; If it's wrong, correct it; If needed, add more) Thus there'll be multiple answers with different syntax and the responses with the most votes will be taken as referring when commenting. The code to copy, paste and edit to your pleasure is: (And I remark again, just import the comments, not the code) /* This programs find 1 number in 1 file. The file is binary type and has integers in series. The number is integer type and it's entered from the keyboard. When finished the program, a poster will show the results: Saying if the number is in the file or not. */ #include <stdio.h> //FUNCTION 1 //Open file 'path' and closes it. void openf(char path[]) { int num; //Read from Keyboard a Number and it save it into 'num' var printf("Ready for read number.\n\nNumber --> "); fflush(stdin); scanf("%d",&num); //Open file 'path' in READ mode FILE *fvar; fvar=fopen(path,"rb"); //IF error happens when open file, exit of function if (fvar==NULL) { printf("ERROR while open file %s in read mode.",path); exit(1); } /*Verify the result of 'funct' function IF TRUE, 'num' it's in the file*/ if (funct(path,fvar,num)) printf("The number %d it is in the file %s.",num,path); else printf("The number %d it is not in the file %s.",num,path); fclose(fvar); } /*FUNCTION 2 It is a recursive function. Reads number by number until the file is empty or the number is found. Parameters received: 'path' -> Directory file 'fvar' -> Pointer file 'num' -> Number to compare */ int funct(char path[],FILE *fvar,int num) { int compare; //FALSE condition when the pointer reaches the end if (fread(&compare,sizeof(int),1,fvar)>0) /*TRUE condition when the number readed is iqual that 'num' ELSE will go to the function itself*/ if (compare!=num) funct(path,fvar,num); else return 1; else return 0; } int main(int argc, char **argv) { char path[30]="file.bin"; //Direction of the file to process openf(path); //Function with algorithm return 0; }

    Read the article

  • Is there an easy way to type in common math symbols?

    - by srcspider
    Disclaimer: I'm sure someone is going to moan about easy-of-use, for the purpose of this question consider readability to be the only factor that matters So I found this site that converts to easting northing, it's not really important what that even means but here's how the piece of javascript looks. /** * Convert Ordnance Survey grid reference easting/northing coordinate to (OSGB36) latitude/longitude * * @param {OsGridRef} gridref - easting/northing to be converted to latitude/longitude * @returns {LatLonE} latitude/longitude (in OSGB36) of supplied grid reference */ OsGridRef.osGridToLatLong = function(gridref) { var E = gridref.easting; var N = gridref.northing; var a = 6377563.396, b = 6356256.909; // Airy 1830 major & minor semi-axes var F0 = 0.9996012717; // NatGrid scale factor on central meridian var f0 = 49*Math.PI/180, ?0 = -2*Math.PI/180; // NatGrid true origin var N0 = -100000, E0 = 400000; // northing & easting of true origin, metres var e2 = 1 - (b*b)/(a*a); // eccentricity squared var n = (a-b)/(a+b), n2 = n*n, n3 = n*n*n; // n, n², n³ var f=f0, M=0; do { f = (N-N0-M)/(a*F0) + f; var Ma = (1 + n + (5/4)*n2 + (5/4)*n3) * (f-f0); var Mb = (3*n + 3*n*n + (21/8)*n3) * Math.sin(f-f0) * Math.cos(f+f0); var Mc = ((15/8)*n2 + (15/8)*n3) * Math.sin(2*(f-f0)) * Math.cos(2*(f+f0)); var Md = (35/24)*n3 * Math.sin(3*(f-f0)) * Math.cos(3*(f+f0)); M = b * F0 * (Ma - Mb + Mc - Md); // meridional arc } while (N-N0-M >= 0.00001); // ie until < 0.01mm var cosf = Math.cos(f), sinf = Math.sin(f); var ? = a*F0/Math.sqrt(1-e2*sinf*sinf); // nu = transverse radius of curvature var ? = a*F0*(1-e2)/Math.pow(1-e2*sinf*sinf, 1.5); // rho = meridional radius of curvature var ?2 = ?/?-1; // eta = ? var tanf = Math.tan(f); var tan2f = tanf*tanf, tan4f = tan2f*tan2f, tan6f = tan4f*tan2f; var secf = 1/cosf; var ?3 = ?*?*?, ?5 = ?3*?*?, ?7 = ?5*?*?; var VII = tanf/(2*?*?); var VIII = tanf/(24*?*?3)*(5+3*tan2f+?2-9*tan2f*?2); var IX = tanf/(720*?*?5)*(61+90*tan2f+45*tan4f); var X = secf/?; var XI = secf/(6*?3)*(?/?+2*tan2f); var XII = secf/(120*?5)*(5+28*tan2f+24*tan4f); var XIIA = secf/(5040*?7)*(61+662*tan2f+1320*tan4f+720*tan6f); var dE = (E-E0), dE2 = dE*dE, dE3 = dE2*dE, dE4 = dE2*dE2, dE5 = dE3*dE2, dE6 = dE4*dE2, dE7 = dE5*dE2; f = f - VII*dE2 + VIII*dE4 - IX*dE6; var ? = ?0 + X*dE - XI*dE3 + XII*dE5 - XIIA*dE7; return new LatLonE(f.toDegrees(), ?.toDegrees(), GeoParams.datum.OSGB36); } I found that to be a really nice way of writing an algorythm, at least as far as redability is concerned. Is there any way to easily write the special symbols. And by easily write I mean NOT copy/paste them.

    Read the article

  • Jump-start Your Mind

    - by João Angelo
    I haven’t written in a while mostly because I’ve spent my time reading what others wrote and today I’m writing purely motivated by what I just finished reading. Mindfire: Big Ideas for Curious Mind by Scott Berkun was such a pleasure to read and ended up igniting parts of my mind which I have to admit were becoming a bit numb that I felt the urge to take some time to first say thank you to the author and then recommend it to all your curious minds out there. Now, go read it… it’s time well spent.

    Read the article

  • How forgiving do you need to be on new employees?

    - by Arcturus
    Recently we have a new developer in our team. We are getting him up to speed and he is picking it all up quite fast, but a new developer means new (foreign) coding styles and ways to solve things. It feels kinda petty to start whining about coding styles at the first three classes he codes, but how forgiving are you guys when dealing with new developers? Do you let them muddle on, and point it out later? Or do you wield the scepter of intolerance immediately? When do you draw the line, or if not, why not? P.S. New guy, if you read this: you are doing great, keep up the good work ;) Edit: I've accepted the most up-voted answer, as most answers share the same message: Be nice, but tell them asap! Thanks all for the nice answers! Really appreciated it!

    Read the article

  • Method flags as arguments or as member variables?

    - by Martin
    I think the title "Method flags as arguments or as member variables?" may be suboptimal, but as I'm missing any better terminology atm., here goes: I'm currently trying to get my head around the problem of whether flags for a given class (private) method should be passed as function arguments or via member variable and/or whether there is some pattern or name that covers this aspect and/or whether this hints at some other design problems. By example (language could be C++, Java, C#, doesn't really matter IMHO): class Thingamajig { private ResultType DoInternalStuff(FlagType calcSelect) { ResultType res; for (... some loop condition ...) { ... if (calcSelect == typeA) { ... } else if (calcSelect == typeX) { ... } else if ... } ... return res; } private void InteralStuffInvoker(FlagType calcSelect) { ... DoInternalStuff(calcSelect); ... } public void DoThisStuff() { ... some code ... InternalStuffInvoker(typeA); ... some more code ... } public ResultType DoThatStuff() { ... some code ... ResultType x = DoInternalStuff(typeX); ... some more code ... further process x ... return x; } } What we see above is that the method InternalStuffInvoker takes an argument that is not used inside this function at all but is only forwarded to the other private method DoInternalStuff. (Where DoInternalStuffwill be used privately at other places in this class, e.g. in the DoThatStuff (public) method.) An alternative solution would be to add a member variable that carries this information: class Thingamajig { private ResultType DoInternalStuff() { ResultType res; for (... some loop condition ...) { ... if (m_calcSelect == typeA) { ... } ... } ... return res; } private void InteralStuffInvoker() { ... DoInternalStuff(); ... } public void DoThisStuff() { ... some code ... m_calcSelect = typeA; InternalStuffInvoker(); ... some more code ... } public ResultType DoThatStuff() { ... some code ... m_calcSelect = typeX; ResultType x = DoInternalStuff(); ... some more code ... further process x ... return x; } } Especially for deep call chains where the selector-flag for the inner method is selected outside, using a member variable can make the intermediate functions cleaner, as they don't need to carry a pass-through parameter. On the other hand, this member variable isn't really representing any object state (as it's neither set nor available outside), but is really a hidden additional argument for the "inner" private method. What are the pros and cons of each approach?

    Read the article

  • Is 'Protection' an acceptable Java class name

    - by jonny
    This comes from a closed thread at stack overflow, where there are already some useful answers, though a commenter suggested I post here. I hope this is ok! I'm trying my best to write good readable, code, but often have doubts in my work! I'm creating some code to check the status of some protected software, and have created a class which has methods to check whether the software in use is licensed (there is a separate Licensing class). I've named the class 'Protection', which is currently accessed, via the creation of an appProtect object. The methods in the class allow to check a number of things about the application, in order to confirm that it is in fact licensed for use. Is 'Protection' an acceptable name for such a class? I read somewhere that if you have to think to long in names of methods, classes, objects etc, then perhaps you may not be coding in an Object Oriented way. I've spent a lot of time thinking about this before making this post, which has lead me to doubt the suitability of the name! In creating (and proof reading) this post, I'm starting to seriously doubt my work so far. I'm also thinking I should probably rename the object to applicationProtection rather than appProtect (though am open to any comments on this too?). I'm posting non the less, in the hope that I'll learn something from others views/opinions, even if they're simply confirming I've "done it wrong"!

    Read the article

  • Is it good practice to use functions just to centralize common code?

    - by EpsilonVector
    I run across this problem a lot. For example, I currently write a read function and a write function, and they both check if buf is a NULL pointer and that the mode variable is within certain boundaries. This is code duplication. This can be solved by moving it into its own function. But should I? This will be a pretty anemic function (doesn't do much), rather localized (so not general purpose), and doesn't stand well on its own (can't figure out what you need it for unless you see where it is used). Another option is to use a macro, but I want to talk about functions in this post. So, should you use a function for something like this? What are the pros and cons?

    Read the article

  • Named arguments (parameters) as a readability aid

    - by Damian Mehers
    A long time ago I programmed a lot in ADA, and it was normal to name arguments when invoking a function - SomeObject.DoSomething(SomeParameterName = someValue); Now that C# supports named arguments, I'm thinking about reverting to this habit in situations where it might not be obvious what an argument means. You might argue that it should always be obvious what an argument means, but if you have a boolean argument, and callers are passing in "true" or "false" then qualifying the value with the name makes the call site more readable. contentFetcher.DownloadNote(note, manual : true); I guess I could create Enums instead of using true or false (Manual, Automatic in this case). What do you think about occasionally using named arguments to make code easier to read?

    Read the article

  • Struggling with the Single Responsibility Principle

    - by AngryBird
    Consider this example: I have a website. It allows users to make posts (can be anything) and add tags that describe the post. In the code, I have two classes that represent the post and tags. Lets call these classes Post and Tag. Post takes care of creating posts, deleting posts, updating posts, etc. Tag takes care of creating tags, deleting tags, updating tags, etc. There is one operation that is missing. The linking of tags to posts. I am struggling with who should do this operation. It could fit equally well in either class. On one hand, the Post class could have a function that takes a Tag as a parameter, and then stores it in a list of tags. On the other hand, the Tag class could have a function that takes a Post as a parameter and links the Tag to the Post. The above is just an example of my problem. I am actually running into this with multiple classes that are all similar. It could fit equally well in both. Short of actually putting the functionality in both classes, what conventions or design styles exist to help me solve this problem. I am assuming there has to be something short of just picking one? Maybe putting it in both classes is the correct answer?

    Read the article

  • Switch or a Dictionary when assigning to new object

    - by KChaloux
    Recently, I've come to prefer mapping 1-1 relationships using Dictionaries instead of Switch statements. I find it to be a little faster to write and easier to mentally process. Unfortunately, when mapping to a new instance of an object, I don't want to define it like this: var fooDict = new Dictionary<int, IBigObject>() { { 0, new Foo() }, // Creates an instance of Foo { 1, new Bar() }, // Creates an instance of Bar { 2, new Baz() } // Creates an instance of Baz } var quux = fooDict[0]; // quux references Foo Given that construct, I've wasted CPU cycles and memory creating 3 objects, doing whatever their constructors might contain, and only ended up using one of them. I also believe that mapping other objects to fooDict[0] in this case will cause them to reference the same thing, rather than creating a new instance of Foo as intended. A solution would be to use a lambda instead: var fooDict = new Dictionary<int, Func<IBigObject>>() { { 0, () => new Foo() }, // Returns a new instance of Foo when invoked { 1, () => new Bar() }, // Ditto Bar { 2, () => new Baz() } // Ditto Baz } var quux = fooDict[0](); // equivalent to saying 'var quux = new Foo();' Is this getting to a point where it's too confusing? It's easy to miss that () on the end. Or is mapping to a function/expression a fairly common practice? The alternative would be to use a switch: IBigObject quux; switch(someInt) { case 0: quux = new Foo(); break; case 1: quux = new Bar(); break; case 2: quux = new Baz(); break; } Which invocation is more acceptable? Dictionary, for faster lookups and fewer keywords (case and break) Switch: More commonly found in code, doesn't require the use of a Func< object for indirection.

    Read the article

  • Anonymous function vs. separate named function for initialization in jquery

    - by Martin N.
    We just had some controversial discussion and I would like to see your opinions on the issue: Let's say we have some code that is used to initialize things when a page is loaded and it looks like this: function initStuff() { ...} ... $(document).ready(initStuff); The initStuff function is only called from the third line of the snippet. Never again. Now I would say: Usually people put this into an anonymous callback like that: $(document).ready(function() { //Body of initStuff }); because having the function in a dedicated location in the code is not really helping with readability, because with the call on ready() makes it obvious, that this code is initialization stuff. Would you agree or disagree with that decision? And why? Thank you very much for your opinion!

    Read the article

  • How to handle interruptions in developer work without losing concentration? [closed]

    - by tomaszs
    I work as a developer for some years now. Mainly the issue why it's antisocial work is because you need to spend much time programming. I've been always the kind of developer who likes to cut off from any sources of distraction and spend several hours on project because in this way i (as i hope) do it faster. There are also other kinds of developers, more social that can chat, read, watch movies while development and they are ok with this and don't hesitate to be interrupted in their work in any time and come back to the project without any problem. For me any distraction is source of frustration because i need to spend substantial time to load my mind with all info about the project and to concentrate back on the tasks. I always thought it's better to do this that way because project is completed faster. But it makes some things difficult: it's hard to chat with someone who needs to have some important info: because you are a bit frustrated when you know you loose your Zen. And sometimes its more important to chat with someone than to loose Zen. Well.. mostly in any other kind of work the ability to be "multitask" is very important. But as a developer and as a person it's also very important to stay social. And i see now that the problem of concentration makes it difficult to make the right chose: the cost of maintaining concentration is just sometimes so damn high! So is it only me that i have so little concentration skills so any interruption is for me a big deal? Maybe it's just i have so bad memory so that i dont remember all issues of a project so long? Or maybe i develop the project in a fashion that requires me to store so much info on my mind only to be able to start working with code? Or should i just accept that being more social will make me finish project slower and in the fashion that i personally consider non 100% productive? And it's just normal thing and i should just accept it and start to live like any other person who has many works and don't assume that programming is in any case other than any other work and i just do fuzz about the whole concentration thing? This is question for mid-pro developers. I think you was having the same dillema in your life. I would be glad if you could help me take the right road here because it's just driving me and i suppose people i work with crazy for years.

    Read the article

  • How does a "Variables introduce state"?

    - by kunj2aan
    I was reading the "C++ Coding Standards" and this line was there: Variables introduce state, and you should have to deal with as little state as possible, with lifetimes as short as possible. Doesn't anything that mutates eventually manipulate state? What does "you should have to deal with little state as possible" mean? In an impure language such as C++, isn't state management really what you are doing? And what are other ways to "deal with as little state as possible" other than limiting variable lifetime?

    Read the article

  • What happened this type of naming convention?

    - by Smith
    I have read so many docs about naming conventions, most recommending both Pascal and Camel naming conventions. Well, I agree to this, its ok. This might not be pleasing to some, but I am just trying to get you opinion why you name you objects and classes in a certain way. What happened to this type of naming conventions, or why are they bad? I want to name a struct, and i prefix it with struct. My reason, so that in IntelliSense, I see all the struct in one place, and anywhere I see the struct prefix, I know it's a struct: structPerson structPosition anothe example is the enum, although I may not prefix it with "enum", but maybe with "enm": enmFruits enmSex again my reason is so that in IntelliSense, I see all my enums in one place. Because, .NET has so many built in data structures, I think this helps me do less searching. Please I used .NET in this example, but I welcome language agnostic answers.

    Read the article

  • Intentional misspellings to avoid reserved words

    - by Renesis
    I often see code that include intentional misspellings of common words that for better or worse have become reserved words: klass or clazz for class: Class clazz = ThisClass.class kount for count in SQL: count(*) AS kount Personally I find this decreases readability. In my own practice I haven't found too many cases where a better name couldn't have been used — itemClass or recordTotal. However, it's so common that I can't help but wonder if I'm the only one? Anyone have any advice or even better, quoted recommendations from well-respected programmers on this practice?

    Read the article

  • Elegant ways to handle if(if else) else

    - by Benjol
    This is a minor niggle, but every time I have to code something like this, the repetition bothers me, but I'm not sure that any of the solutions aren't worse. if(FileExists(file)) { contents = OpenFile(file); // <-- prevents inclusion in if if(SomeTest(contents)) { DoSomething(contents); } else { DefaultAction(); } } else { DefaultAction(); } Is there a name for this kind of logic? Am I a tad too OCD? I'm open to evil code suggestions, if only for curiosity's sake...

    Read the article

  • What are your programming idiosyncrasies?

    - by EpsilonVector
    I noticed that I have a peculiar habit of finishing every line with a space. It carries over from my prose writing where a paragraph can have multiple sentences and so it is very common to follow a period with a space, and I end up doing that automatically for every period (or when it comes to programming- semicolon). It started out as something automatic, but I'm so used to this by now that if I miss the space it actually bothers me and I end up returning to that line to input it. What are some of your programming idiosyncrasies?

    Read the article

  • Is there an excuse for excessively short variable names?

    - by KChaloux
    This has become a large frustration with the codebase I'm currently working in; many of our variable names are short and undescriptive. I'm the only developer left on the project, and there isn't documentation as to what most of them do, so I have to spend extra time tracking down what they represent. For example, I was reading over some code that updates the definition of an optical surface. The variables set at the start were as follows: double dR, dCV, dK, dDin, dDout, dRin, dRout dR = Convert.ToDouble(_tblAsphere.Rows[0].ItemArray.GetValue(1)); dCV = convert.ToDouble(_tblAsphere.Rows[1].ItemArray.GetValue(1)); ... and so on Maybe it's just me, but it told me essentially nothing about what they represented, which made understanding the code further down difficult. All I knew was that it was a variable parsed out specific row from a specific table, somewhere. After some searching, I found out what they meant: dR = radius dCV = curvature dK = conic constant dDin = inner aperture dDout = outer aperture dRin = inner radius dRout = outer radius I renamed them to essentially what I have up there. It lengthens some lines, but I feel like that's a fair trade off. This kind of naming scheme is used throughout a lot of the code however. I'm not sure if it's an artifact from developers who learned by working with older systems, or if there's a deeper reason behind it. Is there a good reason to name variables this way, or am I justified in updating them to more descriptive names as I come across them?

    Read the article

  • Deciding between obj->func() and func(obj)

    - by GSto
    I was thinking about this when I was starting to set up some code for a new project: are there any rules of thumb for when a method should be part of an object, and when it should be a stand alone function that takes an object as a parameter? EDIT: as pointed out in a comment, this can depend on language. I was working in C++ when it came to mind, though I'm this is an issue across a number of languages (and would still love to see answers that pertain to them).

    Read the article

  • Should you create a class within a method?

    - by Amndeep7
    I have made a program using Java that is an implementation of this project: http://nifty.stanford.edu/2009/stone-random-art/sml/index.html. Essentially, you create a mathematical expression and, using the pixel coordinate as input, make a picture. After I initially implemented this in serial, I then implemented it in parallel due to the fact that if the picture size is too large or if the mathematical expression is too complex (especially considering the fact that I made the expression recursively), it takes a really long time. During this process, I realized that I needed two classes which implemented the Runnable interface as I had to put in parameters for the run method, which you aren't allowed to do directly. One of these classes ended up being a medium sized static inner class (not large enough to make an independent class file for it though). The other though, just needed a few parameters to determine some indexes and the size of the for loop that I was making run in parallel - here it is: class DataConversionRunnable implements Runnable { int jj, kk, w; DataConversionRunnable(int column, int matrix, int wid) { jj = column; kk = matrix; w = wid; } public void run() { for(int i = 0; i < w; i++) colorvals[kk][jj][i] = (int) ((raw[kk][jj][i] + 1.0) * 255 / 2.0); increaseCounter(); } } My question is should I make it a static inner class or can I just create it in a method? What is the general programming convention followed in this case?

    Read the article

  • Should I return iterators or more sophisticated objects?

    - by Erik
    Say I have a function that creates a list of objects. If I want to return an iterator, I'll have to return iter(a_list). Should I do this, or just return the list as it is? My motivation for returning an iterator is that this would keep the interface smaller -- what kind of container I create to collect the objects is essentially an implementation detail On the other hand, it would be wasteful if the user of my function may have to recreate the same container from the iterator which would be bad for performance.

    Read the article

  • How to get rid of the background gradient of the inline GtkToolbar?

    - by Dima
    When you run the below code, it will show an inline toolbar in a window. Notice how the inline toolbar has a stand-out backbround. Is there a way to apply CSS to get rid of it and make blend with regular window color? #!/usr/bin/python3 from gi.repository import Gtk button_names = [Gtk.STOCK_ABOUT, Gtk.STOCK_ADD, Gtk.STOCK_REMOVE, Gtk.STOCK_QUIT] buttons = [Gtk.ToolButton.new_from_stock(name) for name in button_names] toolbar = Gtk.Toolbar() toolbar.set_show_arrow(False) for button in buttons: toolbar.insert(button, -1) style_context = toolbar.get_style_context() style_context.add_class(Gtk.STYLE_CLASS_INLINE_TOOLBAR) grid = Gtk.Grid() grid.add(toolbar) label = Gtk.Label() grid.add(label) window = Gtk.Window() window.set_size_request(200, 50) window.add(grid) window.connect('delete-event', Gtk.main_quit) window.show_all() Gtk.main()

    Read the article

< Previous Page | 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34  | Next Page >