RE: [sigc] RE: [gtkmm] Roadmap regarding sigc++2

[Murray Cumming Comneon com]

> From: Andreas Rottmann [mailto:a rottmann gmx at] 
> > 1. There seem to be some large API changes in libsigc++ 2 - 
> I'd like 
> > to minimise these.
> >
> >    For instance:
> >    - the non-existence of SigC::slot().
> >
> >    - Use of "this", instead of "*this" when connecting
> >    handlers. People already changed for gtkmm 2.4, and I don't look
> >    forward to telling them to change again.
> >
> I guess both of them could be solved by providing a slot() 
> function that is as overloaded to the same extent as the 
> previous one and simply invokes ptr_fun# and mem_fun#.

Yes, I'm thinking of something like that too.

> > 2. We need to investigate the low-level libsigc++ API that 
> allows us 
> > to do strange connection/disconnection notification things. 
> A simple 
> > compile against libsigc++ 2.0 would probably show these.
> >
> Well, this will be a bit harrier I guess. The only 
> notification mechanism sigc++2 seems to provide (note that 
> Martin is more intimate with the code than me, so maybe I'm 
> wrong here) is when a sigc::trackable object goes out of 
> scope (sigc::trackable is roughly comparable to SigC::Object 
> in that respect). I guess with sigc++ 1.2 you could do more voodoo.

It might not be difficult. We would need to try it.

> >> * How will this effect the memory managment API? ATM there is
> >>   SigC::Object and SigC::manage, which are not there anymore in
> >>   sigc++2. I guess memory management in glibmm will be purely
> >>   GObject-based, then? However, in sigc++2, there is 
> sigc::trackable,
> >>   so I guess this will have to be inherited by GLib::Object.
> >
> > I don't think manage() needs to be in SigC::Object. We can probably 
> > just put it in our Glib::ObjectBase class. We don't really use the 
> > SigC::Object::manage(), I think, just it's virtual method name.
> >
> I didn't mean SigC::Object::manage(), but SigC::manage(obj), 
> which calls SigC::ObjectBase::set_manage() on obj.

Yes, I think I meant set_manage(). We just re-namespace SigC::manage() to
Gtk::manage() now but we could reimplement it easily.

Murray Cumming
murrayc usa net
www.murrayc.com