Re: A couple of small bugs + patches

[Christian Borup <borup borup com>]

Dave Carrigan wrote:

> Christian Borup <borup borup com> writes:
>
> > Charlie Schmidt wrote:
> >
> > > ill leave it to paolo too, but in my opinion is it better to leave it as
> > > a GtkWidget.  what if it *ISNT* a GtkMenu (for whatever reason), the only
> > > thing that every object *must* be in Gtk is a GtkWidget (ok, sure a
> > > GtkObject, but thats opaque).  but whatever.
> >
> > I don't agree. If it isn't a GtkMenu it should be blessed into whatever
> > class it is, having it blessed as a GtkWidget is not helpfull at all.
> > The perl programmer should not have to pay for C not having classes...
>
> That's my thought as well. Plus, what I probably wasn't making clear, is
> that my patch doesn't coerce the object to be a GtkMenu, it coerces the
> object to be whatever its real class is. Gtk appears to have enough
> capability for object introspection to identify the object's class and
> it looks to me like perl-gtk uses that ability to bless objects into
> their proper class (see newSVGtkObjectRef()).

Heh well in that case I do agree :-)

> I'm not exactly sure the magic behind this, but if you declare that an
> xs function returns a Gtk::Widget, it returns Gtk::Widget. If you
> declare that an xs function returns Gtk::Widget_Up, it returns an object
> that is the correct subclass of Gtk::Widget.
>
> So, with my patch, if $optionmenu->get_menu somehow returned a
> Gtk::CTree, that would be correctly blessed into the Gtk::CTree class.

Exelent. To be honest I had not looked at your patch when I wrote my reply.

> I'm still trying to figure out exactly how the Gtk::Widget_Up magic
> works, as well as figure out what exactly the *_Sink classes are...

If you start with gtk-0.99.typemap it make sense. The Cast.+ macros are defined
in build/GtkDefs.h, and SvGtkObjectRef() is defined in GtkTypes.c.

Have fun poking around :-)

./borup (blight on GimpNet)