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

[murrayc t-online de (Murray Cumming)]

On Mon, 2001-12-03 at 13:54, Daniel Elstner wrote:
> Yes.  People should update their compiler.  Since when are we starting
> to work around bugs in other OSS packages?

That's not very practical.
 
> > > > 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.
> 
> It wasn't wrong, but redundant and weird-looking.  It seems we have now
> finally sorted this out.

OK. Thanks for clearing that up.

> I don't think it'd be clearer.  The way it's now is the only way in C++
> to generate an array at compile time.  And why would you want to
> generate an array at runtime if you can do it at compile time?

Actually it would be nicest to use the compile-time version with a typedef 
to make it clearer, but it needs to work on gcc2.96RH.

> 
> > > (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.
> 
> The predefined array needs _no_ code at all.  So the vector variant must
> be bigger in any case.

I don't disagree that it's bigger and slower, but I don't believe that
that is of any relevance to a running application.

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