Re: stupid segfaults -- argh!

["Joe Van Dyk" <joevandyk gmail com>]

On 6/24/06, Paul Davis <paul linuxaudiosystems com> wrote:
> On Sat, 2006-06-24 at 01:43 -0700, Joe Van Dyk wrote:
> > On 6/24/06, Joe Van Dyk <joevandyk gmail com> wrote:
> > > On 6/7/06, Joe Van Dyk <joevandyk gmail com> wrote:
> > > > On 6/6/06, Paul Davis <paul linuxaudiosystems com> wrote:
> > > > > On Mon, 2006-06-05 at 17:40 -0700, Joe Van Dyk wrote:
> > > > > > I wonder why the documentation says a Gtk::Main object can't be
> > > > > > created in the global scope.  Apparently, that's what I want to do, as
> > > > > > I can't put it inside main().
> > > > >
> > > > > GTK and gtkmm require library initialization before any objects related
> > > > > to them can be created. by attempting to put Gtk::Main in global scope
> > > > > you are effectively asking for this order to be reversed.
> > > >
> > > > If I have Gtk::Main outside of any classes or functions (global scope,
> > > > right?), what "related" objects would be created before Gtk::Main was
> > > > called?
> >
> > Anyone?  I'm confused why having the call to Gtk::Main at file scope is bad.
>
> a) it requires argc & argv to allow the user to pass in various GTK-
> level options

Not an issue for me.  (I can't modify anything in main() as it's being
autogenerated by the build process)

> b) you have essentially zero control over the ordering of it being
> called relative to other globals.

Not an issue for me, as far as I know.  There aren't any other
gtk-related things at file scope.

> c) putting things at file scope has been deprecated for, oh, about 20
> years now. its just not something you do unless there is a very very
> good reason to do so, and certainly not in an ostensibly object oriented
> programming language.

Ok, thanks!  I guess not being able to put the call inside main()
might be a good reason.

Thanks,
Joe