Re: Minutes of the GTK+ Team Meeting - 2008-09-23

[Mikael Hallendal <micke imendio com>]

Hi,

Why not simply keep gtk_hbox_new and gtk_vbox_new?

I can see a number of reasons for doing so:

1) They are used all over the place
2) The cost of maintaining them are next to zero
3) They make sense on their own,
   gtk_hbox_new instead of gtk_box_new (HORIZONTAL, ...)

I think removing the classes but keep gtk_hbox_new/gtk_vbox_new that  
simply creates a GtkBox with the correct orientation is the right  
approach here.

Just my thoughts,
  Micke

24 sep 2008 kl. 17.51 skrev Michael Natterer:

> On Wed, 2008-09-24 at 11:23 -0400, Morten Welinder wrote:
> > > I don't think the minutes reflect what was said in the meeting here.
> > > My understanding was hat the H/V subclasses get deprecated as soon
> > > as the code to enable flipping in their parent classes is in SVN.
> >
> > If, say, gtk_hbox_new was to get deprecated and disappear in 3.x then
> > it would be near-impossible to write a program to compile against  
> > both
> > 2.x and 3.x
>
> How is this different from any other deprecated function that got
> replaced by another one and will disappear in 3.0?
>
> --mitch
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> gtk-devel-list mailing list
> gtk-devel-list gnome org
> http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gtk-devel-list

--
Mikael Hallendal
Imendio AB - Expert solutions in GTK+
http://www.imendio.com