Re: Arrgh IB constraints
Re: Arrgh IB constraints
- Subject: Re: Arrgh IB constraints
- From: Charles Srstka <email@hidden>
- Date: Sun, 08 Jul 2012 21:32:11 -0500
On Jul 8, 2012, at 9:11 PM, Rick Mann wrote:
> Wow, really? I think it SHOULD use the actual sizes as specified in IB. There's a wealth of information there, and I can't think of a better way to specify what the default window should look like.
As an addendum to my previous e-mail, another thing I’ve learned is never to call setFrame: when constraints are being used. It has no effect most of the time, as the views’ frames will all get overwritten by constraints in short order.
> The idea of adding a height constraint really rubs me the wrong way, as I don't want to constrain it (other than to make it a >= constraint).
You have to get used to the new way of thinking about things. No height constraint is literally telling the system, “I don’t care how high you make this view. Make it 1 px high, make it 1,000,000 px high, it’s all the same to me.”
With no height constraint, the system doesn’t know how it should look at startup, and therefore that picture with the bottom pane being half the window’s height is just as legit as the bottom text view being one line high.
Charles
_______________________________________________
Cocoa-dev mailing list (email@hidden)
Please do not post admin requests or moderator comments to the list.
Contact the moderators at cocoa-dev-admins(at)lists.apple.com
Help/Unsubscribe/Update your Subscription:
This email sent to email@hidden