Re: [gnomemm] gconfmm 2.0.0 release candidate

[triendl klaus <triendl kj aon at>]

> People would still have to worry about the order of initialization of
> static objects, so I don't think this would make it much simpler.

this is true but it would at least save pointer initialization if a global instance is really needed.


> If all of these init() methods have the same signature, you might think
> about adding an initialization class to glibmm.

no, they don't have the same signature (at least not Glib::thread_init and Gnome::Conf::init)


-- 
triendl klaus


-------------------------------------------
Versendet durch AonWebmail (www.jet2mail.at)