Re: GtkLabel patch

[Tim Janik <timj gtk org>]

On 28 Feb 2001, Havoc Pennington wrote:

> 
> Tim Janik <timj gtk org> writes:
> > first, worrying about slowness in debugging enabled code
> > is not a valid argument, by that reasoning we'd have to take
> > a huge portion of our checks out which defeats the purpose
> > _debugging_ checks (in case you wonder, take a look at
> > g_signal_emitv() how it checks all passed in arguments when
> > debugging is enabled).
> 
> This is totally bogus, because we ship the tarball with the typechecks
> turned on by default, and all the major Linux distributions also ship
> GTK with the checks turned on.

i'm afraid this was not totaly bogus. we do in fact turn the type checks
off for stable branches, and assuming that most distributors don't change
the debugging default, stable gtk versions get shipped without type checks.

> > second, i personally have run into it, and i've seen buggy
> > user code that would have triggered warnings from the above
> > checks, if they were just consistenly used. a common way to
> > run into them is creation of new widgets or changing the
> > ancestor of a widget. suddenly you might poke around in
> > a parent class that isn't actually your parent anymore.
> 
> We can agree to disagree there I guess, doesn't seem worth it to me.

i don't understand. do you mean that you disagree that code could
could trigger warnings from the class cast checks? what do you want,
a code example?

> 
> Havoc
> 

---
ciaoTJ