Re: [gtkmm] gtkmm3 speculation: intermediate types.

[Carl Nygard <cjnygard fast net>]

On Mon, 2002-11-04 at 06:45, Murray Cumming wrote:
> By "gtkmm3" I mean "some future API break". That might mean, "gtkmm 2.2"
> or "gtkmm 2.4", and I might not necessarily mean the "next" API break.
> Nothing is going to change soon.
> 
> I'm not very comfortable with our use of intermediate types in the API:
> http://www.gtkmm.org/gtkmm2/docs/tutorial/html/ch03s05.html
> 

I apologize for not having time enough to contribute code, all I can do
is contribute my opinions;)

> People don't know how to use them unless they read the book or reference
> documentation.

This always strikes me as an oxymoron-ish argument.  If you want it to
be easy enough to use without docs, why do you provide docs?  I know I
can't use Gtk+ just by looking at functions and arguments, I need the
docs.  So why worry about it?  They're already digging in the docs for
how to use manage properly...;)

> 
> I think their advantage (You can choose whether to use a list, vector,
> or whatever, instead of us choosing for you) doesn't outweigh the
> disadvantage (they make the API less clear, and people might we're
> stupid enough to implement non-standard containers). Please discuss.

Docs are available to show how to use the API, and to explain the merits
of the API.  (Non)existance of docs should not be used as an argument in
a technical decision.  Ultimately, it's the technical decisions that
attract or repel people using the library (vis Qt moc/Qstring vs. Gtkmm
STL/SigC/manage), not whether they can figure something out by looking
at the function signature.

I'm not saying clarity and ease of use isn't important, I'm just saying
don't take it to extremes and let it unduly influence a technical design
decision.

Regards,
Carl