Re: gtkmm and boost

[manphiz <manphiz gmail com>]

Paul Davis wrote:
> Like you mention, its always going to be a balancing act.
>
> I think the thing you need to remember when thinking about changing
> parts of the backend of Gtkmm is that it *is* a wrapper around Gtk.
> There's no getting around that. Replacing things like Glib::RefPtr
> with boost::shared_ptr are probably just not going to happen.
>
> There will always be a whole host of issues that would simply not
> exist if the original Gtk were written in C++. But had it been, it
> probably would've been replaced by somethg else by now.
>
> Paul Davis

Ok, i see. I'm convinced that the Gtk-wrapper nature is after all the 
essence of gtkmm, which is a fair-enough trade off back in the day when 
Gtk was invented. So I'll stop pursuing Boost-ized gtkmm. In fact, being 
a good standard-C++-philosophy-based design, gtkmm has already got the 
flexibility in interoperability with other standard compatible things in 
stardard C++ manner, which is good enough. I'd better get used to it. 
And things may still change when C++0x comes out, and I'm looking 
forward to it :)