On Tue, 2010-09-28 at 10:11 -0400, Owen Taylor wrote:
On Tue, 2010-09-28 at 09:55 +0200, Murray Cumming wrote:
We could just unref the underlying object, but once the wrapping C++
object has been destroyed, the vfuncs (and default signal handlers) will
fall back to default C implementations, if any, and this could even
cause different UI behaviour.
If I must, then I'll force Gtk::CellRenderer and Gtk::TreeViewColumn to
be used only via RefPtr, like other reference-counted objects, but
this will probably just annoy C++ programmers. They feel like widgets,
so it seems odd for them to not have similar memory management.
g_object_run_dispose() is very similar to gtk_widget_destroy() in terms
of memory management semantics.
Yes, after talking on irc we came to the same conclusion.
The main difference is that there's no ::destroy signal emitted.
For some reason we use a qdata destroy callback to detect GObject
destruction anyway, instead of the destroy signal.
--
murr...@murrayc.com
www.murrayc.com
www.openismus.com
___
gtkmm-list mailing list
gtkmm-list@gnome.org
http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gtkmm-list
