[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread] 

List:       gtk-devel
Subject:    Re: Sinkability considered harmful
From:       Tim Janik <timj () imendio ! com>
Date:       2006-01-06 18:31:25
Message-ID: Pine.LNX.4.61.0601061927450.2853 () localhost ! localdomain
[Download RAW message or body]

On Fri, 6 Jan 2006, Bill Haneman wrote:

>  (federico)
>
>>> API freeze for GNOME 2.14 is approaching quickly.  Can we please back
>>> out GObject floating references soon?
>>> 
>> (timj)
>> 
>> no, there really is no point in that. even if we were to do that, we
>> couldn't hold off floating references for non-GtkObjects but GObjects
>> anyway. the results would just be more diverse/spread-out, produce
>> more special cases for code dealing with object creation and possibly
>> be buggy.
>> i.e. it'd cause many people more learning/care taking work, and is more
>> likely to cause further pain due to an increased likelyness for bugs and
>> inconsistencies. i think that's a strong argument towards allowing the
>> unification of floating/sink functionality in GObject.
>> 
> This sounds like a "momentum" argument, and as such I think it's not a strong 
> one.

this is not THE argument for supporting flating references in GObject,
there's plenty of other argumentation on this thread to support hits.
i have even worded the above hypothetically. it's just argumentation
showing that federicos call:

>>> That is why
>>> I advocate keeping floating references in GtkObject and GtkWidget as a
>>> historical artifact, rather than as recommended practices.

isn't even theoretically possible. simply a point i considered worth raising.

>
> Bill

---
ciaoTJ
_______________________________________________
gtk-devel-list mailing list
gtk-devel-list@gnome.org
http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gtk-devel-list
[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]