>> if you want the destroy handler called, remove the widget from its >> container and call gtk_widget_destroy() on it; alternatively, leave it >> in the container and destroy the container, which has assumed >> ownership (i.e. responsibility) for the widgets it contains. the >> simple story: a widget is only destroyed when its reference count >> reaches zero. that will never happen in your program. > >Well this code was a single test, the widget will be used on more complex >apps. Anyway what is best ? , should I use the signal or callback ? for >redefine my destroy handler ??.
you're mixing terminology in a confusing way. GTK signals are the name given to a complex, though easy to use, callback system. you don't have a choice between signals and callbacks. your handler is fine, even though it does nothing right now. the problem is simply that nothing ever calls gtk_widget_destroy(). if you want to test the handler, do as i suggested above. its rare that applications need to worry about the destroy signal, unless they have frequently constructed widgets that are associated with large chunks of per-widget-private data. if so, perhaps it matters, but you might be wise to read up on Model-View-Controller programming as a different and much more flexible and correct program design technique. --p _______________________________________________ gtk-list mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gtk-list
