[ Top-posting intentionally ] After all the feedback we got, I summarize:
Fl_Smart_Pointer should not be used, because its name could be mistaken for something that is different. Fl_Widget_Guard should not be used either for similar reasons. Our best bet would be Fl_Widget_Tracker, and this is okay for me. I'll use this, if there are no objections until the weekend. Thanks for your feedback Albrecht ----- Albrecht Schlosser wrote: > Question to developers: > > Recently I added a new class Fl_Watch to simplify the handling of widget > deletion during callbacks (svn -r 6651, [2]). > > This class is used to wrap the use of Fl::watch_widget_pointer() and the > related functions. Now ... > > Matthias Melcher wrote in [1]: > > > I am happy about wrapping the functionality into a class and to get > rid of > > the deferred delete. I would like to suggest a different name for the > class > > though - I am no native speaker, but "watch" to me is such a commonly > used > > word. How about: > > > > Fl_Widget_Tracker > > Fl_Widget_Guard > > Fl_Widget_Patrol > > > > or simply > > > > Fl_Smart_Pointer (maybe even making it public?!) > > I wasn't sure about a good name (my first idea was Fl_Widget_Watch), and > I am open for suggestions. > > From the above names, I'd like Fl_Widget_Guard or Fl_Smart_Pointer most. > > Suggestions for other names are welcome! > > BTW.: The current implementation of Fl_Watch _is_ public and documented > in svn :-) > > Albrecht > > P.S.: I'm wondering why the discussion of STR #1306 doesn't show up in > fltk.development... > > ----- > [1] http://www.fltk.org/str.php?L1306 > [2] http://www.fltk.org/newsgroups.php?gfltk.commit+v:7003 _______________________________________________ fltk-dev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.easysw.com/mailman/listinfo/fltk-dev
