Re: gtkmm 3.0.

[Murray Cumming <murrayc murrayc com>]

On Thu, 2010-03-25 at 01:57 +0000, Chris Vine wrote:
> In cases where GTK+ does not in fact
> intend ownership to be passed, gtkmm gets round this by incrementing
> the reference count in the getter function, thus neutering the RefPtr,
> but also leaving open the possibility of a reference being owned by a
> user to an invalid object.  In such cases the object should really be
> returned by a simple pointer or a weak pointer. 

Do you have an example GTK+ C function for that? Maybe it should even be
in gtkmm's bugzilla.

I'm sorry for not taking the time to consider this discussion fully
right now, but I do want to revisit it properly for gtkmm 3. I hope to
have time later. Right now, I'm not putting much thought into gtkmm 3
because it's not clear when the (silly, unnecessary, IMHO) ABI-breaking
GTK+ 3 will happen, giving us the (blameless) opportunity to do gtkmm 3.

Even if we don't change this, I hope we'll have the big discussion again
(like we did for gtkmm 2) so we know why we've decided whatever we
decide.

-- 
murrayc murrayc com
www.murrayc.com
www.openismus.com