Re: [Re: [Re: [Re: [Re: [Re: [Re: [Re: [Re: [[gtkmm] technical question: GTKMM_LIFECYCLE]]]]]]]] ]
- From: MHL Schulze t-online de (Martin Schulze)
- To: Murray Cumming <murrayc usa net>
- Cc: gtkmm-list <gtkmm-list gnome org>
- Subject: Re: [Re: [Re: [Re: [Re: [Re: [Re: [Re: [Re: [[gtkmm] technical question: GTKMM_LIFECYCLE]]]]]]]] ]
- Date: Wed, 2 Oct 2002 23:44:59 +0200
Am 02.10.2002 19:49 schrieb(en) Murray Cumming:
Paul Davis <pbd op net> wrote:
> >> keep things like I have implemented them at the moment and recommend
> >> users to write "Gst::RefPtr<Gst::Pad> my_pad = Gst::manage(new
> something like:
> Gst::container_managed (new Gst::Pad);
I think that would still lead to confusion.
My crappy online email system isn't making it easy to review the thread,
don't really see how it's necessary anyway. If Gst::manage() just means
the container ref-counts it, and you can ref-count it too, then how's
different to Glib::RefPtr<Gst::Pad> refPad = Gst::Pad::create(), which is
I'd expect it to be done based on all the other wrappers.
I will add the example code I wrote earlier (the one with
to bugzilla. If anyone pops up with a satisfying solution for this I will
work this solution into gstmm, make it the default behaviour and remove
manage(). Only then would it really be redundant. Until then I won't change
the code of Gst::Object.
] [Thread Prev