On Mon, 1 Oct 2001 22:32:56 -0500 Daniel Joyce daniel.a.joyce@att.net wrote:
It is not desirable if you use larger fonts. Too many windows assume 12 pt as the normal size, and are hardcoded for that.
With a 22 pt font ( needed for 1280x1024, so I can read stuff ), the text runs outside a lot of buttons, and it looks very unprofessional and hackish.
I can resize fonts in Gnome, KDE, and Windows, and the buttons resive with them.
From the jpg you sent, the buttons *did* resize to contain the text. The problem was that the parent of buttons did not resize to enclose the buttons. The issues you point to are easily fixed. In SoundDemoMorph>>initialize, e.g., change
self hResizing: #spaceFill. to self hResizing: #shrinkWrap.
and you will get something more pleasing.
Squeak has too many hardcoded extents, and morphs that aren't smart enough to resize properly.
Why not submit changes where you think they are needed?
If Squeak is ever going to be taken seriously as a environment by outsiders, it needs to look professional.
That may depend on your intended audience. Some people are wowed by "professional" while others may prefer "fun", "powerful" or "innovative".
Not clipping submorphs is silly. Have you ever seen text appear outside the window/widget/button that contains it on Win95/KDE/Gnome? I haven't.
Never having used any of those, I can't comment. I wonder if you mean resizing rather than clipping in these cases. Having buttons hanging over the edge of their parent seems a bit better than having tham clipped out of existence, but having the parent resize to contain them seems best.
Heck, Microsoft got this right in Windows 3.1.
Why can't we?
I think we can.
Cheers, Bob
squeak-dev@lists.squeakfoundation.org