Re: GTK_FLOATING broken in 2.9?

[Havoc Pennington <hp redhat com>]

On Tue, 2005-12-20 at 09:37 -0800, Dave Benson wrote:
> 
> why does one want GFloatingObject?
> it seems like calling g_object_force_floating()
> isn't too hard...  and derivation is a somewhat
> inflexible way to set flags (for example, it
> can't be done in a subsubclass of object;
> and to support N flags this way would require 2^N object types)

What I meant to propose is that there's a force_floating(), and
GFloatingObject is just a subclass that calls it on construct, and
GtkObject also calls it on construct. The only purpose of
GFloatingObject is to call force_floating for you so you don't have to
put that in the constructor of your own class.

> it seems like the principal merit would be to do
> G_IS_FLOATING_OBJECT() (which is confusingly named to
> begin with, since it has rather different meaning than
> g_object_is_floating() but that's a different issue)...

GFloatableObject is probably a better name

> one way to achieve that is to support floating-ness on 
> a per-class basis, so that G_IS_FLOATING_OBJECT()
> replaced by
>   g_object_class_are_instances_initially_floating(G_OBJECT_GET_CLASS(objcet))
> (g_object_force_floating() would be used only in g_object_init() and binding hacks
> instead g_object_class_make_instances_float() or something
> would be in class_init())

Some kind of class flag would work too, sure

Havoc