Re: [gtkmm] retype() and retype_return()
- From: Murray Cumming <murrayc usa net>
- To: Romain Behar <romainbehar yahoo com>
- Cc: gtkmm-list <gtkmm-list gnome org>
- Subject: Re: [gtkmm] retype() and retype_return()
- Date: 25 Jul 2002 15:40:52 +0100
On Thu, 2002-07-25 at 15:23, Romain Behar wrote:
> > > No. People don't understand libsigc++ so they
> > > don't contribute to it.
> > > Drastic action is needed to fix that. I expect
> > > that people will be less daunted by a smaller set
> > > of code.
> > People would be less confused if it was better
> > documented, not less functional.
> Right. libsig 1.1.11 contains less than 2000 lines of
> code, which make it already a very small library.
> To maintain code easily, one has to be able to know
> where to make the changes using documentation, or code
> comments. Package size does not matter.
This is nonsense in the real world of libsigc++. Only one of these will
happen within the next year:
1. I remove code tomorrow, making the library slightly easier to
understand, and making it less scary for people.
2. _You_, not me, not anyone else, go through the code adding all the
comments that Karl should have added when he wrote it. You do this
before the gtkmm freeze in a couple of weeks.
I won't pick 2. because it's not realistic. Feel free to prove me wrong.
> Extra library
> would increase dependencies when GTKMM2 depends on a
> fair amount of packages.
gtkmm will not need to depend on libsigc_extras. I doubt that man people
will need libsigc_extras.
> Let developers write documentation for exotic
> functions if you don't want to, but don't kill those
> useful features!
The extra functions are actually the easiest parts of the code to
understand. I just need to remove them to focus attention on the core
murrayc usa net
] [Thread Prev