Re: gtkmm-list Digest, Vol 159, Issue 8

[deepak bhujangachar harvelsystems com]

Hi All,

I got solution to the last problem. I am sorry asking such a vague  
questions. I am learner in gtkmm please help. Next time I will be more  
specific about my problems. It will not happen again.

Thanks
Deepak

Quoting gtkmm-list-request gnome org:

> Send gtkmm-list mailing list submissions to
>         gtkmm-list gnome org
>
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
>         https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gtkmm-list
> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
>         gtkmm-list-request gnome org
>
> You can reach the person managing the list at
>         gtkmm-list-owner gnome org
>
> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
> than "Re: Contents of gtkmm-list digest..."
>
>
> Today's Topics:
>
>    1. Re: Accessing combo box text (Murray Cumming)
>    2. Re: Returning sigc::signal by value from a const method?
>       (Murray Cumming)
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Message: 1
> Date: Mon, 24 Jul 2017 14:18:38 +0200
> From: Murray Cumming <murrayc murrayc com>
> To: Daniel Boles <dboles src gmail com>, gtkmm-list
>         <gtkmm-list gnome org>
> Subject: Re: Accessing combo box text
> Message-ID: <1500898718 26837 1 camel murrayc com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
>
> On Sat, 2017-07-22 at 12:23 +0100, Daniel Boles wrote:
> > On 22 July 2017 at 12:07, <deepak bhujangachar harvelsystems com>
> > wrote:
> > > Hi All,
> > >
> > > I am getting message like this after stop debugging. "gtkmm-
> > > CRITICAL **: gtkmm: object `Product_Combo' not found in GtkBuilder
> > > file." Please help.
> > >
> > > Thanks
> > > Deepak
> >
> > Well? Is it in the ui file? Despite your many messages indicating
> > that you think people here are psychic, they are not.
> >
> > I mean, look at what you've asked. What are we meant to do with that?
> > Psychically tell you what is wrong with this mysterious .ui file you
> > haven't shown us?
> >
> > Again, please spend more time thinking about how to ask usable
> > questions. You can't just keep posting here saying 'I tried this, but
> > it doesn't work. What is wrong' and no more info that that. It
> > doesn't provide any fuel for discussion, and frankly it's starting to
> > feel like spam.
>
> Daniel, please be more patient if you choose to respond. This person is
> asking for help. Your first two sentences would have been enough.
>
> If you also want to teach him how to ask, please be nicer about it.
>
>
> --
> Murray Cumming
> murrayc murrayc com
> www.murrayc.com
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 2
> Date: Mon, 24 Jul 2017 14:20:20 +0200
> From: Murray Cumming <murrayc murrayc com>
> To: Daniel Boles <dboles src gmail com>, gtkmm-list
>         <gtkmm-list gnome org>
> Subject: Re: Returning sigc::signal by value from a const method?
> Message-ID: <1500898820 26837 2 camel murrayc com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
>
> On Sat, 2017-07-22 at 10:58 +0100, Daniel Boles wrote:
> > As an aside, since realising that providing any form of full access
> > to a signal gives external users the ability to emit() it, clear()
> > it, etc. - I am considering moving to a model whereby I only expose
> > signals via a method like this:
> >
> > sigc::connection signal_whatever_connect(signal_whatever_type slot);
> >
> > This involves quite a bit of boilerplate, albeit not all that much
> > worse than what we have to write to implement a (pointless) by-
> > reference or -value getter anyway.
> >
> >
> > However, it got me wondering. Has anyone ever come up with a better
> > way to only allow users to connect() to signals and nothing more, or
> > at least a way to reduce the required boilerplate of my proposed
> > mechanism somehow?
> >
> > I did find an old thread where IIRC Murray talked about how he would
> > like to see access control on signals, FWIW! That may have changed in
> > the meantime, whether through opinion or just practicality.
> >
> > I guess it could be done, but with smoe huge API changes; e.g. I
> > imagine we could return a base class that does not have the modifying
> > methods from our own objects, while using a derived class that does
> > provide them internally.
> >
> >
> > At the end of the day, the real question is whether the work of
> > providing access control would be justifiably better than just
> > requiring users to encapsulate signals for themselves; I suspect the
> > answer might be no. Still interested in any thoughts.
>
> I'm not aware of any efforts to make this easier. It does bother me
> too.
>
> --
> Murray Cumming
> murrayc murrayc com
> www.murrayc.com
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Subject: Digest Footer
>
> _______________________________________________
> gtkmm-list mailing list
> gtkmm-list gnome org
> https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gtkmm-list
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> End of gtkmm-list Digest, Vol 159, Issue 8
> ******************************************