Re: Sinkability considered harmful

[Tim Janik <timj imendio com>]

On Fri, 6 Jan 2006, Bill Haneman wrote:

>  (federico)
>
> > > API freeze for GNOME 2.14 is approaching quickly.  Can we please back
> > > out GObject floating references soon?
> > (timj)
> >
> > no, there really is no point in that. even if we were to do that, we
> > couldn't hold off floating references for non-GtkObjects but GObjects
> > anyway. the results would just be more diverse/spread-out, produce
> > more special cases for code dealing with object creation and possibly
> > be buggy.
> > i.e. it'd cause many people more learning/care taking work, and is more
> > likely to cause further pain due to an increased likelyness for bugs and
> > inconsistencies. i think that's a strong argument towards allowing the
> > unification of floating/sink functionality in GObject.
> This sounds like a "momentum" argument, and as such I think it's not a strong 
> one.

this is not THE argument for supporting flating references in GObject,
there's plenty of other argumentation on this thread to support hits.
i have even worded the above hypothetically. it's just argumentation
showing that federicos call:

> > > That is why
> > > I advocate keeping floating references in GtkObject and GtkWidget as a
> > > historical artifact, rather than as recommended practices.

isn't even theoretically possible. simply a point i considered worth raising.

> Bill

---
ciaoTJ