Printable View
Hi, I have a group of two exclusive actions with a QActionGroup. Both actions are checkables. The problem is that if I press under an action that is checked, the action continues checked but what I really want is to uncheck it. The only way to uncheck an action is by pressing the other action of the group. Is it a simple way of doing what I want without add a new slot? Thanks
Call setExclusive(false) on the action group.
Finally what I have done is connect, for both actions, the signal toogled of an action with the slot setdisabled of the other action
Seems a bit 'brute force'. Didn't my solution work?Quote:
Originally Posted by SkripT
Sorry that I reply too late but I thought that the solution would be ok, but don't :mad: and I didn't read again the htread
That's exactly the problem :DQuote:
Originally Posted by Chicken Blood Machine
I need the two actions being exclusive: if I activate an action I want to inactivate the other action. The problem is that if I push under an activated (checked) action, the action remains activated but what I really want is to disactivate it. I would like to know if it's possible to make it easily connecting only the signals and slots provided with QAction. I think that the solution should be something like: Dont' put the actions in an action group and when a signal toggled(true) is recevied of some of both actions I have to call setChecked(false) of the other action.Quote:
Originally Posted by Chicken Blood Machine
Another problem that I noticed is that if I put both actions in an exclusive action group and I push under a checked action, the button of the action is painted like if I was pushing it to activate it again but no signal (toggled or triggered) is emited :confused: I suppose that 's beacuse the state of the action hasn't changed, but should be a way to know if the action has been pushed again...
Thanks.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SkripT
I think there is a confusion about what 'exclusive' means. If two (or more) buttons are exclusive then one of them should always be checked. Therefore pushing one that is already checked should not deselect it and should not fire any signal because the state has not and should not change.
The behaviour that you descibe above is bizarre and non-standard and yes, you will have to code it yourself somehow.
If I want this behaviour is because I have seen it in many appliactions. If you are using Windows XP take a look at the Microsoft Photo Editor program. The behaviour of the buttons to select an area of the image and to define the transparent color follow this behaviour. As you see it's not as bizarre and non-standard as you comment... ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by Chicken Blood Machine
The fact that it is used in one application (even if it is a popular one), doesn't automatically make it "standard".
I don't think I have Microsoft Photo Editor on Windows XP - regardless - proof by selected example is no proof at all. The writers of MS photo editor probably had to speciifcally code that behaviour too :-)Quote:
Originally Posted by SkripT
You are right, but I dont' think that the behaviour that I comment is a strange behaviour. Basically is the same that having a group of exclusive actions with the only difference that I want that the activated/checked action could be unchecked without having to check another action. That's all. Finally I have solved it with a new slot.
The thing you want can be easily achieved by adding another item titled "None of the above".
Yes that's the other solution that I was managing too. I have to decide which of both I will put on the final app. Thanks.Quote:
Originally Posted by wysota
Well then they're definitely not 'exclusive'. I'm glad you found a solution for your problem though.Quote:
Originally Posted by SkripT