Re: [gtkmm] retype() and retype_return()

[Murray Cumming <murrayc usa net>]

On Fri, 2002-07-26 at 20:23, Martin Schulze wrote:
> Am 25.07.2002 18:36 schrieb(en) Murray Cumming:
> > What functionality do you mean? Bear in mind that I intend to keep some
> > kind of hide_return() and bind_return() functionality.
> 
> I may sound like a broken record but:
> There are only bind, bind_return, hide, retype, retype_return, convert.
> It's really not that much! I consider these adaptors all of equal
> importance. Adaptor one to five in my enumeration form some kind of
> group

bind and bind_return are about dictating _values_.
hide and hide_return are about _ignoring_ parameters
retype and retype_return are about changing the _types_ of parameters.

These are 3 distinct groups, though some might be implemented internally
in terms of others.

> - if you remove one of them there is a lack in functionality.
> So you may either remove them _all_ of them or none - it would be very
> inconsistent to leave two of them that are chosen by mere chance 

bind() is clearly the most popular. It is used more and asked about
more.

> and
> it would provoke tons of emails on the mailing list asking why adaptor
> xyz is not included in the main library any more.

If that happens then we might add them back. I don't believe it will
happen. It doesn't matter how loudly 1 or 2 people shout, they are still
just a vocal minority. So far there are _no_ replies to my "saving
retype and retype_return" vote.

-- 
Murray Cumming
murrayc usa net
www.murrayc.com