Re: Fixing the GtkTreeModel::row-deleted inconsistency

On Wed, May 09, 2007 at 02:01:20PM +0200, Sven Neumann wrote:
> Wouldn't it make more sense to introduce a new signal "row-delete" and
> use that instead of changing the semantics of "row-deleted"? If that
> would have been done in the first place, then you wouldn't have said
> inconsistency now.

Yes, I agree that this complete problem wouldn't exist if we had added a
new signal.  However, right now both the filter and sort models have
been emitting row-deleted before deleting the row and the documentation
has had the said note for quite some time now, so personally I prefer to
fix up the list and tree store at this point.

Later on we can then easily add a post-row-deleted if required.  Moving
the filter and sort models over to a "pre-row-deleted" would require
patching up tree view and will break any object (views, models, etc)
which create their own references to iterators and release those on
row-deleted, plus all third-party models doing reference counting.  I
think such a change would be more troublesome from a compatibility point
of view than the change of gtk_tree_model_foreach() (for just the list
and tree store) as outlined in my previous mail.



[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]