RE: [Re: [gtkmm] ANNOUNCE: gtkmm 2.2.8]

[Murray Cumming Comneon com]

> From: Chris Vine [mailto:chris cvine freeserve co uk] 
> On Thursday 02 October 2003 4:06 pm, Murray Cumming wrote:
> > Chris Vine <chris cvine freeserve co uk> wrote:
> > > I wonder if the relevant private derivation in gtkmm needs to be
> > > reviewed.
> > >
> > > reinterpret_casts generally seem like desperation, and 
> changing the
> > > access type of the derivation seems a preferable way of ensuring
> > > compliance with
> >
> > the
> >
> > > standard.
> >
> > Yes, we should fix it in gtkmm 2.4, but we can not break 
> API/ABI in gtkmm
> > 2.2. That's why we used a workaround instead.
> 
> The easiest approach is to change the private inheritance to 
> protected 
> inheritance. Does that break ABI (it shouldn't break API)?

Yes, that should have no pratical effect on anybody, but it is a _change_ in
API, and I don't want to make any API changes in a stable branch unless it
is absolutely necesssary (as well as imperceptible). It is not necessary.
I'd rather not take the risk, and I'd rather everyone knows that we don't
take risks.

Murray Cumming
murrayc usa net
www.murrayc.com