Re: [glade--] Could raw C++ pointers be eliminated?
- From: "Murray Cumming" <murrayc murrayc com>
- To: "Christof Petig" <christof petig-baender de>
- Cc: glademm <glademm-list gnome org>, Paul Elliott <pelliott io com>, Murray Cumming <murrayc murrayc com>
- Subject: Re: [glade--] Could raw C++ pointers be eliminated?
- Date: Wed, 20 Oct 2004 11:44:01 +0200 (CEST)
>>>Christof Petig schrieb:
> If you use member variables, you cannot hide internal widgets from the
> class definition and put them locally into the ctor. [The pimpl idiom
> might help here]
OK. I read "ctor local variables" as "member variables", which was silly
of me.
>>>Concerning smart pointers: The gtkmm infrastructure needs to work well
>>>first.
>>
>>
>> Specifically?
>
> Last I heard was that using Glib::RefPtrs on widgets was not advisable
> since ref counting was difficult to design correctly with widgets (due
> to the underlying gtk+ library ignoring pending references on
> destruction IIRC). [That was the state back during the meeting in
> Berlin, has this changed?]
Yes, RefPtr<> is not a general purpose smartpointer. But there are plenty
of other general purpose smartpointers that can be used with gtkmm.
Murray Cumming
murrayc murrayc com
www.murrayc.com
www.openismus.com
[
Date Prev][
Date Next] [
Thread Prev][
Thread Next]
[
Thread Index]
[
Date Index]
[
Author Index]