Re: gdk_io_* clarification

[Owen Taylor <otaylor redhat com>]

James Macnicol <jamesm@evans.ee.adfa.oz.au> writes:

> > OK, I'm completely confused.
> > 
> > You surely aren't arguing that:
> > 
> >  gdk_input_remove(tag);
> >  gdk_input_remove(tag);
> > 
> > isn't a bug in your code - it's no different from 
> > 
> >  free(block);
> >  free(block);
> > 
> 
> 	The code is
> 
> tag = gdk_input_add_full()  (original one in main())
> 
> then
> 
> gdk_input_remove(tag)
> tag = gdk_input_add_full()
> gdk_input_remove(tag)
> tag = gdk_input_add_full()
> 
> 	There are not two calls to gdk_input_remove() in sucession, just
> an add followed immediately by a remove and an add again.  I know this seems
> a little silly, but from a modularity pont-of-view it'd be nice to have
> in my program.

Ah, I didn't notice your correction to your example;
but in any case it (and a similar program I cooked
up myself) all works for me.

Perhaps your logic is getting confused because the destroy
notifications are being called in the opposite order to
the "obvious" one? (The second destroy notify gets invoked
first, because the first input handler is still active)

Sorry not to have a better answer,
                                        Owen