On Wed, Oct 20, 2004 at 06:43:51PM -0400, Carl Nygard wrote: > > dialogs look like. > > Did WE just step INTO a zippy carTOON? > > As soon as you require all widgets to take DTRO_holder objects, you lose > the ability to have widgets as class members or local variables, which > is one of the design goals of gtkmm. > Yes, but the DTRO_holder objects could be local variables, or class members. Also the DTRO_holder object could have a method that returns a REFERENCE to the underlying DTRO, therefore REFERENCES to the DTRO could be class members or local variables. The user would not be encouraged or required to take the address of such a REFERENCE. > Once you require DTRO_holder objects, you muck up the derivation of > derived widgets, as you pointed out. I've tried this sort of thing in > similar circumstances, and you tend to box yourself into a corner. Are we 100% percent sure there is no way around this problem? What if we got a smart C++ expert such as Stroustrup or Koenig thinking about it? Admitting this is tantamount to conceding that there are some respects for which C++ is inferior to JAVA. This I am extremely unwilling to do. -- Paul Elliott 1(512)837-1096 pelliott io com PMB 181, 11900 Metric Blvd Suite J http://www.io.com/~pelliott/pme/ Austin TX 78758-3117
Attachment:
pgpX88qHwoMiw.pgp
Description: PGP signature