RE: [Re:[[gtkmm] technical question: GTKMM_LIFECYCLE]

["Butler, Gerald" <gbutler jewels com>]

> -----Original Message-----
> From:	MHL Schulze t-online de [SMTP:MHL Schulze t-online de]
> Sent:	Thursday, October 03, 2002 4:35 PM
> To:	Butler, Gerald
> Cc:	gtkmm-list
> Subject:	Re: [Re:[[gtkmm] technical question: GTKMM_LIFECYCLE]
> 
> Hi!
> 
> The only thing you and M.C. are mistaken about is that _if_ we keep
> the name manage() in gstmm, only those users will be confused that
> suddenly _try_ to write something like
> 
> Gtk::RefPtr<Gtk::Label> = manage(new Gtk::Label);
> 
> It is my believe that they will notice very soon that what they
> are trying to do may be perfectly legal in gstmm but is simply not
> possible in gtkmm because
> a) there is no Gtk::RefPtr<> and
> b) it is not possible to implement without changing the gtk+
>     way of handling container destruction.
> 
> Users coming from gtkmm and starting to use gstmm like they are
> using gtkmm (that is without the Gst::RefPtr<>) won't notice any
> difference.
> 
> Confused? :-)
> 
> Regards,
> 
>    Martin
> 
	Ah...Now you've made me realize the errors of my way. I completely
missed the point that GstMM would work *exactly* like GtkMM unlesss the user
explicitly did something different. I think, in that case, the slight semantic
difference between GstMM::manage and Gtk::manage is perfectly acceptable.

	However, it should be documented in both the GstMM docs and the GtkMM
docs.


> Am 03.10.2002 18:08 schrieb(en) "Butler, Gerald":
> > 
> > 
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From:	Paul Davis [SMTP:pbd op net]
> > > Sent:	Thursday, October 03, 2002 11:48 AM
> > > To:	Butler, Gerald
> > > Cc:	'Carl Nygard'; 'MHL Schulze t-online de'; gtkmm-list
> > > Subject:	Re: [Re:[[gtkmm] technical question: GTKMM_LIFECYCLE]
> > >
> > > >> "petitioning the GTK+ crowd to use gtk_object_unref()
> > > >> instead of gtk_widget_destroy() in gtk_container_destroy(). then
> 
	<SNIP>

> > 
> > 	I think having something *like* manage under GstMM is the best
> > solution. Perhaps it should be called "container_reference".
> > 
> > 	Thank You for this opportunity to give my opinion.
> 
> 
 The information contained in this e-mail message is privileged and/or
 confidential and is intended only for the use of the individual or entity
 named above.  If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient,
 or the employee or agent responsible to deliver it to the intended 
 recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or 
 copying of this communication is strictly prohibited.  If you have received 
 this communication in error, please immediately notify us by telephone
 (330-668-5000), and destroy the original message.  Thank you.