spinbox bug?

#1 08-27-2008, 07:58 AM

Hi All,

I'm using a spinbox to control a timer. For the hour setting I would
like numbers 00, 01, .., 23. So I use options:
-from 0 -to 23 -increment 1 -width 2 -format "%02.0f"

However, when operating the spinbox arrows, I can go up to 08, but from
there instead of going to 09 the box resets to 00.
Adding a validation command which always returns 1 does not help.
Changing the format to "%2.0f" avoids the problem, possibly because
then values like '09' which can be interpreted as a bad octal do not occur.

-- Hans

#2 08-27-2008, 08:47 AM

On 27 Aug., 13:58, Hanz <h...@nospam.nl> wrote:
> Hi All,
>
> I'm using a spinbox to control a timer. For the hour setting I would
> like numbers 00, 01, .., 23. So I use options:
> -from 0 -to 23 -increment 1 -width 2 -format "%02.0f"
>
> However, when operating the spinbox arrows, I can go up to 08, but from
> there instead of going to 09 the box resets to 00.
> Adding a validation command which always returns 1 does not help.
> Changing the format to *"%2.0f" avoids the problem, possibly because
> then values like '09' which can be interpreted as a bad octal do not occur.
>
> -- Hans

To avoid this yet another incarnation of the octal problem, you might
just give a values list:
pack [spinbox .s -values {
00 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21
22 23
}]
instead of -from, -to, -format, -increment

#3 08-27-2008, 09:16 AM

Hi suchenwi,
>
> To avoid this yet another incarnation of the octal problem, you might
> just give a values list:
> pack [spinbox .s -values {
> 00 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21
> 22 23
> }]
> instead of -from, -to, -format, -increment
Thanks, yes, I tried this, but to my surprize you can see still funny
behavior around with the '09' list element, as if it is somehow still
inspected. Still, I guess this is the only solution...

Cheers, Hans

#4 08-27-2008, 09:28 AM

On 27 Aug., 15:16, Hanz <h...@nospam.nl> wrote:
> > To avoid this yet another incarnation of the octal problem, you might
> > just give a values list:
> > pack [spinbox .s -values {
> > * *00 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21
> > 22 23
> > }]
> > instead of -from, -to, -format, -increment
>
> Thanks, yes, I tried this, but to my surprize you can see still funny
> behavior around with the '09' list element, as if it is somehow still
> inspected. Still, I guess this is the only solution...

If you do any arithmetic with the strings 08 and 09, you'd better
[scan] the numeric value out of them before doing that. Just spinning
over them shows no problem here.

#5 08-27-2008, 10:51 AM

suchenwi wrote:
> On 27 Aug., 15:16, Hanz <h...@nospam.nl> wrote:
>>> To avoid this yet another incarnation of the octal problem, you might
>>> just give a values list:
>>> pack [spinbox .s -values {
>>> 00 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21
>>> 22 23
>>> }]
>>> instead of -from, -to, -format, -increment
>> Thanks, yes, I tried this, but to my surprize you can see still funny
>> behavior around with the '09' list element, as if it is somehow still
>> inspected. Still, I guess this is the only solution...
>
> If you do any arithmetic with the strings 08 and 09, you'd better
> [scan] the numeric value out of them before doing that. Just spinning
> over them shows no problem here.
Right, I had a validation command still checking the field for
non-integer user entry, and indeed the 'string is integer 09' fails. Tricky!

Thanks, Hans

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode