Re: tackling the packer
- From: Melissa Schrumpf <m_schrumpf_at_yahoo_com_NOT@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 18 Aug 2005 23:27:21 -0400
Gerald W. Lester wrote:
> While someone else has answered your question -- you may want to consider
> using the grid geometry manager instead of the packer. I suspect you will
> find it easier to use.
"Easier" depending on purpose. Using [grid], it's easier to layout
widgets in, well, a grid. Unfortunately, you have to keep track of
column and row numbers.
Having started with [pack], I find the fact that you need to
columnconfigure and rowconfigure grid weights in order to get -expand
functionality, rather than giving both options as one would with -expand
and -fill to [pack]. That said, the ability to set proportional
expansion with weight is a major plus for [grid].
It's all a matter of preference. Like laying things out in a table?
Enjoy [grid]. Like not having to count rows and columns all day? Use
[pack]. Enjoy counting pixels? [place] is for you. :-)
Just don't try mixing them at the same level. You can pack things
inside of a [grid]ed frame, I had a horrible problem when I accidentally
[pack]ed .frame0 and used [grid] on .frame1 ... the window never
completed drawing to screen, and pegged the processor load.
--
MKS
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: tackling the packer
- From: Gerald W. Lester
- Re: tackling the packer
- From: Quokka
- Re: tackling the packer
- References:
- tackling the packer
- From: k:arel
- Re: tackling the packer
- From: Gerald W. Lester
- tackling the packer
- Prev by Date: Re: help reading fortran generated binary data...
- Next by Date: Re: after behaviour
- Previous by thread: Re: tackling the packer
- Next by thread: Re: tackling the packer
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|