Re: none

[Owen Taylor <otaylor redhat com>]

Maciej Stachowiak <mjs eazel com> writes:

> Tim Janik <timj gtk org> writes:
> 
> > 
> > i don't know who proposed, that dude must have been on crack,
> > destroy serves a completely different purpose than weak_refs.
> > 
> 
> They both have the end result of notifying you whent he object is
> destroyed.
> 
> > the reason why i didn't implement weak_refs for GObject is that they
> > are extremely rarely used on GtkObject,
> 
> Yeah, because the "destroy" signal is so much more convenient.
> 
> > and for the rare cases where you can't get away without it, you can
> > still use named data (which is how weak refs are implemented in
> > GObject btw).
> 
> That's highly no-obvious and inconvenient. Why make things a pain for
> the user?

If you want weakrefs, and think object data is inconvenient, then
we should spend the two minutes to port:

void gtk_object_weakref	  (GtkObject	    *object,
			   GtkDestroyNotify  notify,
			   gpointer	     data);
void gtk_object_weakunref (GtkObject	    *object,
			   GtkDestroyNotify  notify,
			   gpointer	     data);

Though note that the only differences between this and 
g_object_set_data_full are a) the presence use of a key, and b) 
the order of the arguments.

Clarifying that ::destroy is a "disconnect everything" command
rather than notification of the object being freed or going
into a "destroyed" state is a major conceptual win for GTK+-2.0.

Regards,
                                        Owen