RE: [gtkmm] Adding more C++ power to Gtkmm

[Murray Cumming Comneon com]

> From: r ve [mailto:kaas_10 hotmail com] 
> Err, sorry.. that was one of the worst examples ever (I 
> thought the Widget 
> was actually a GtkWidget.. I guess I was almost sleeping when 
> I wrote that).
> 
> Anyway, I was referring to methods/signals like these:
> - Gtk::Widget::on_size_allocate(GtkAllocation* allocation)

Sure, a C++ instance there would be better. Things like this are quite rare
though (I'd be interesteed to know how/why you are using on_size_allocate).
Just submit a gtkmm 2.4 bug in bugzilla. 

> Where GtkRequisition is some vague Gtk structure.
> I think things would become easier and more clear when having 
> it this way:
> 
> - Gtk::Widget::on_size_allocate(Gdk::Rectangle size)
> (as an additional method of course)

Of course you should explain why we can use Gdk::Rectangle instead of a
GtkAllocation. Maybe they are the same, and/or maybe we do that already in
gtkmm, but it would be nice to have it explained to us.
 
> I hope it's more clear now.
> 
> 
> >Patch, patch, patch, patch, patch
> 
> I was already expecting to get an answer like that =)

More importantly, bugzilla, bugzilla, bugzilla. I think I said that too.

> The only reason for this post was because I wanted to know 
> what you and/or 
> others would think about it (and so that I wouldn't waste any 
> time doing 
> patches to be rejected in the end).

I can't imagine why you thought such obvious changes would be rejected.
 
> When I can find some free areas on my HD (for installing 
> another copy of 
> Gtk/mm + space for the compilated object files) and some free 
> time I'd be 
> happy to provide some patches.
> (can take a few weeks)

In the meantime please use bugzilla.

Murray Cumming
murrayc usa net
www.murrayc.com