Re: Stupid question regarding g_thread_init() and gtk_threads_init()


"NavEcos" <ecos navosha com> writes:

> Or why doesn't, say, gdk_threads_enter() say with an ASSERT "hey
> stupid: I noticed that g_thread_init() was never called".

But that's exactly what the code does:

gdk_threads_init ()
  if (!g_thread_supported ())
    g_error ("g_thread_init() must be called before gdk_threads_init()");

> I don't want to sound like a little brat here since I really like
> GTK and I really appreciate that it's available to me, but I think a
> couple slight modifications would go a long way into making GTK a
> lot easier to use.  GtkInitForStupidPeople (bool bEnableThreads) or
> something, where it does everything for you - as a convenience
> function would be great.  I know you can use different contexts and
> stuff like that, but the reality is that only a handful of people
> do.  Why not make a "duh" interface?  Let's face it, I'm just
> totally stupid, and being very dumb, I like simple interfaces.
> Simple interfaces prevent dumb people like me from filling up lists
> with stupid questions like this, and it reduces bugs too.

That says it all.


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