Re: [glade--]Re: [gtkmm] Problem with gtkmm handling comboboxes from glade

[murrayc t-online de (Murray Cumming)]

On Mon, 2001-12-03 at 11:33, Christof Petig wrote:
> Murray Cumming wrote:
> 
> > On Mon, 2001-12-03 at 09:32, Christof Petig wrote:
> > > > I'd rather not risk breaking the ABI, or other code that uses SArray. If
> > > > it can be fixed with a change to glademm then that would be better.
> > >
> > > I will not remove a sensible const (and ruin the generated code forever) because RH
> > > shipped gcc-2.96.
> >
> > I have not followed this in detail, but this doesn't seem to be the same
> > conclusion that was drawn last time this came up:
> > http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?t=100494551700001&w=2&r=1

I still need this to be answered. The previous discussion seemed to
suggest that there was something wrong with the declaration used by
glademm.

> > > I would tolerate a --for-gcc-2-96 command line switch (which might try to
> > > auto-detect the compiler used). Are there any RH fans around which step ahead to
> > > implement this?
> >
> > Wouldn't it be better to just use a std::vector? That would be clearer
> > anyway.
> 
> Do you prefer
>   x.push_back("A");
>   x.push_back("B");
>   x.push_back("C");
> over
>    { "A", "B", "C" ... }

But that's not what you have. You have a confusing declaration of an array of gchar*

> ?
> 
> I do not.
> Yes I agree it would be clearer. But it looks horrible to me

But it would work.

> (and considerung the
> compiled code size, I would guess that the first variant is much bigger (inlining), but I
> don't have numbers)

I doubt that this is of any relevance.

-- 
Murray Cumming
murrayc usa net
www.murrayc.com