Re: [gtk-list] Re: C++ Wrappers

[Otto Hammersmith <otto redhat com>]

On Sat, Jun 14, 1997 at 12:10:52PM +0300, Martynas Kunigelis wrote:
[snipage]

> This can be solved using templates, too lazy to type in the example,
> just pass a widget creation function as a class template
> parameter. This sucks big time though as I hate templates.

What's wrong with templates, beside lousy compiler support?

> BTW, someone said the code gets very bloated by using templates. Not
> really. Of course the code gets regenerated for different template
> parameters, but there's no other way. The real problem is that g++
> produces and links the same code for every template instance with
> the same parameter in different compile units. Except for ELF
> format, where it places the code into a common section and duplicate
> code gets eliminated during link time. Argh, this is not a C++ list.

I think you're refering to my comment... let me rephrase that...

C++ templates cause unreasonable code bloat when using vanila g++
2.7.2.1.  I don't want to be hassled to apply a patch to every gcc I
use, just so templates can work well.  I'm quite content to wait until
2.8 (and more likely, the final ANSI C++ standard)

> Anyway, I would volunteer to do the C++ wrappers once my exams are
> over if someone cares for that. Or we could unify forces with
> someone who's already doing it.

I'm sure if someone is already working on it, they'd appreciate help.
I also think it's a good idea that someone who has used Qt more than
trivially have some hand in the C++ wrappers.  It'd be -really- nice
to port a Qt app by just doing "#include <gtk-qt-compat.h>" and
rebuilding... though, I doubt that's going to happen.  At least, a
reasonably similar simple implementation so it's not hard to have Qt
or gtk+ as a compile-time option.

> Just please make the button label move as you press it!! Please
> please please. I see no problem with the way Windows does it, maybe
> it's not ABSOLUTELY realistic, but it's something most of us are
> used to and it does RELATIVELY look realistic.

I'm not used to it, and I don't think it's even close to realistic,
much less pleasing.  I'm happy with the background color change,
personally.  Am I the minority?  I doubt it.

> > Also, I haven't noticed any Postscript printing ability with GTK.  Have I
> > just missed it?
>
> That's kinda hard to do you know. I think it would be a good idea to
> move on with the technology and use the XPrint extension or R6.3 for
> that, that makes it _damn_ easy compared to "manual" PostScript
> creation. "Wanna print from gtk - get R6.3". Yeah, the right way to
> force people to move on.

Better yet, use GNUStep come Fall when Display Ghostscript is supposed
to be done. :)

[snipage]

> P.S. I'm glad I started a thread on dnd compatiblity. Arnt "the
> Troll" noticed it and notified the KDE folks and the JX folk, so
> maybe we'll al come up with a good dnd protocol. I think the MIME
> stuf is very cool.

There is already a private list with some good discussion going
on... no noise, so far.  I think Elliot posted about it yesterday.  I
think there's at least one person subscribed from the various camps,
except maybe the S&P camp.
 
> P.P.S. I'm very glad to see really fast development and good
> response.  COOL!  Also it's very cool that you guys take performance
> concerns seriously, that's not what most C++ guys do (Troll is
> definitely _not_ an example here).

:)

'nuf said.

-- 
					-Otto.